The Visit (2015) Review

The Visit

M. Night Shyamalan has had a rough path getting to The Visit. Shyamalan had been on a very slow and steady decline since his breakout smash hit The Sixth Sense but once the thudding failure salvo of Lady in the Water, The Happening, The Last Airbender, and After Earth arrived it looked as if the once promising writer/director’s career was fast approaching it’s expiration date. He needed a hit and he needed it fast. After multiple attempts at more high-concept features that were met with a mixture of frustration and unintentional laughter, The Visit finds its creator returning to simpler and sturdier ground for this modest concoction of family and frights.

The film still bears marks of his signature style despite working within genre confines. The found footage approach seems as though it would rob Shyamalan of his careful sense of shot composition, something that even his weakest works bear, but the director gets around this by establishing the teenaged Rebecca (Olivia DeJonge) as a film geek with the technical know-how to keep the damn camera steady. Rebecca wants to see the grandparents (Peter McRobbie and Deanna Dunagan) that she and her brother Tyler (Ed Oxenbould) never met before and form a documentary about their week-long visit to the family farm. Initial awkwardness aside, things start off fairly well between the estranged generations, although the siblings realize over time that something isn’t quite right with their older relatives.

While advertised as a straight horror ride of creep-outs, The Visit stands apart from the pack with its emphasis on the family dynamic that fuels its story. Shyamalan is unable to avoid all of the pitfalls that plague other found footage entries. The middle section of the film drags without much action to rely on and a sense of repetition creeps in. There’s a particularly hair-raising sequence just after the halfway mark involving multiple cameras and a kitchen knife that would have suitably raised the stakes had it occurred earlier in the plot. However, the filmmaker is able to soften the lull of this stretch thanks to his juggling of the parallel stories. The family tension at the heart of the story, which began with Rebecca and Tyler’s mother running away from home as a teenager, infuses a dramatic backbone for the film to rest itself on so that it isn’t relying on shallow jumps and temporary scares.

The cast of actors is also stronger than usual for the genre, with the confidence of DeJonge and Oxenbould’s performances standing out especially. The young duo are shorn of the affectations that bring down most child actor roles and carry their roles with natural charisma, something that is miraculous in Oxenbould’s case given that Tyler’s inclination to rap could have easily made him an annoying brat. McRobbie grounds the situations with his aloof humanity, even if something seems “off” with John, but it’s Dunagan who carries the real weight of the picture. She’s frequently at the center of the film’s most tense sequences and believably portrays a character who can be picture-perfect sweet one moment and then flip over into unhinged hysteria another time. Dunagan’s performance goes a long way in adding unpredictability to Doris’ presence; we’re never sure when she’s harmless and lucid or about to fly off her rocker.

Like with The Sixth Sense, Shyamalan is less interested in providing a constant stream of shocks and more with building a sense of creeping dread and unease, which is aided by keeping the level of danger created by the grandparents’ actions hazy. There is no left field rug pull to be found here, and the director admirably keeps things simple and avoids providing a far-out explanation for the grandparents’ actions. It isn’t until the climax that tensions reach a sustained fever pitch, and there’s a delicate balance to the proceedings that doesn’t put the children in danger in cheap ways or in unbelievable scenarios. There are some minor directorial decisions along the way that betray the handheld camera approach, like jarring establishing shots of the sky and the out-of-place use of music, but these quibbles are easily ignored with the vice of suspense tightening around the characters in the home stretch.

It has been rather dispiriting to see such a raw and original talent as Shyamalan devolve into self-indulgence and general incompetence in the last decade after the immense promise of his early work. But The Visit proves that there’s always room to allow for a fallen star to pick itself back up even after it crashed into the embarrassing lands of The Happening and The Last Airbender. Shyamalan will need to find the right inspiration before he can make another hit on the level of The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable (and Signs too, which is much better than it’s remembered as), but The Visit proves that an idiosyncratic director such as himself can take familiar material and mold it into an effective work that fits into their wheelhouse of filmmaking.

Oculus (2014) Review

Oculus

Supernatural horror films have experienced a prolific resurgence recently. Blumhouse Productions has frequently been at the forefront of this movement with such popular titles as “Paranormal Activity,” “Sinister” and “Insidious.” As with any category of film there comes a set of clichés that defines it, so it’s welcome when a horror film tries to branch out on its own and break the mold. Unfortunately, the new Blumhouse produced film, “Oculus,” makes passes at something fresh and comes up short in the process.

10 years after a traumatic event sent Tim Russell into the psychotherapy ward, he has recovered on his 21^st birthday and is released into the care of his sister Kaylie. Tim has since repressed the belief that supernatural forces caused the terrible event, but Kaylie still refuses to believe otherwise and obtains the ominous mirror that she believes is the source of their trouble. As the siblings set up recording equipment to prove what no one else believes, the mirror awakens to twist reality to its will.

At the same time, “Oculus” shifts between these events of the present and those of the past where the Russell family was torn apart by the mirror’s omnipotent force. In spite of the present day scenes being the framework for the story, the stuff in the past is where “Oculus” finds its most compelling material. The actors cast in the film can be attributed to this, and while Karen Gillen (old Kaylie) “Doctor Who” fame is given top billing, her and Brenton Thwaites (old Tim) are overshadowed by their younger acting counterparts, Annalise Basso and Garrett Ryan respectively.

Writer/director Mike Flanagan, adapting his own short film of the same name, would have been better off sticking to the story of young Tim and Kaylie experiencing the deterioration of their family. Instead, he creates an awkward parallel structure that both withholds information simply for the sake of forcing a sense of mystery and yet explains too much. In the present, it’s hard to identify with the characters initially when we don’t fully understand their grief. On the other hand, when Kaylie drops a load of exposition explaining everything, it robs the past story of its unpredictability.

Another question of execution comes with the portrayal of the mirror’s supernatural grip. The film is at its strongest when it creates an atmosphere where anything can happen and what we’re seeing isn’t necessarily reality. When Flanagan toys with the audience and keeps things low-key, like in one hair-raising scene concerning a light bulb, the psychological ambiguity he builds up showcases the films potential. When he turns to run-of-the-mill ghost frights, it dilutes the ingenuity of the premise.

The more frightful material comes from the strange behavior of young Kaylie and Tim’s parents, played by Katee Sackhoff and Rory Cochrane. Their descents into madness bring to mind comparisons to “The Shining,” and the storyline would have been strong enough on its own. The film almost seems to self-consciously recognize this as the plotline in the present becomes more and more like an obligatory footnote. Very little actually happens after the siblings set up shop with the mirror, and the ending only serves as a shock since the plot hasn’t been building up to much.

There’s a compellingly chilling story that can be found within “Oculus,” but it is buried in a shroud of cleverness that hinders rather than enhances the film. Making an attempt to shake things up is not enough, especially when that attempt simultaneously dulls the overall impact and resorts to some old tricks.

You're Next (2013) Review

You're Next

“You’re Next” has taken a long road in getting to theaters. It premiered at festivals two years ago to raves and then had to sit on the back burner until now because of messy distribution business. It’s been a long two years waiting for this to come out, especially since legitimately good horror movies are in short stock and the gems are sought after by horror fans (like myself) as if they were gold. Fear not though, because while long delays like that could also be a signal that the movie wasn’t actually as good as we were lead to believe, “You’re Next” lives up to its hype, and the reasons why are a little unexpected.

It’s the typical setup we’ve seen before in countless other home invasion horror movies: a family goes out to their home in the woods for a reunion dinner. Many of them haven’t seen each other in a long time, and internal resentments begin bubbling to the surface quickly. But they now have a bigger problem on their hands than petty squabbling, as multiple masked men lay siege to the house and take out the family one by one. This general outline, however, doesn’t begin to touch the little details that writer Simon Barrett and director Adam Wingard (“V/H/S”) employ to flesh things out and even turn some horror clichés on their heads.

That’s not to say that “You’re Next” is the next horror deconstruction like “Cabin in the Woods” or “Scream.” Rather, Wingard and Barrett start things out on familiar territory and then slowly begin twisting the little things that frustrate horror viewers. Don’t you hate how everyone’s cell phones in horror movies are always conveniently out of service? Well one character suggests they might be using a jammer. Isn’t it frustrating when a character just lays on the ground screaming in terror as the killer slowly raises his weapon? That isn’t like survivalist Erin, who will roll out of the way, kick the killer in the balls, grab the nearest weapon and begin wailing on him until there’s no possible way he’s alive.

Everything that is unexpectedly smart about this movie can be distilled into Erin, who takes the initiative when everyone else cowers in fear and transitions the movie from straight slasher into a more fun thriller territory. The second half becomes a game of cat-and-mouse where Erin, who must love “Home Alone” given the traps she sets up, and the killers attempt to outsmart each other around the house, often to very bloody ends. These are the kind of kills that inspire both shocks and applause in the audience in equal measure, and the darkly funny tone that emerges once Erin fights back is a delight.

Of course, it’s not all perfect. It’s clear that Wingard and Barrett have their heart more in the blood soaked laughs than in straight horror suspense. The first quarter or so is rather routine and uninspired, as if they felt an obligation to put in a “scary” section before turning the tables. The acting from some parties can be suspect too. Sure, horror movies don’t need great acting but when some of them are quite good then the lesser ones stand out more. Sharni Vinson is the obvious standout, whose physical performance and intensity plausibly sell Erin’s cunning will despite her waif-like stature. Horror veterans A.J. Bowen and Barbara Crampton show up for nice turns too, although a few of the other actors let them down with unconvincing reactions to situations.

Yet sometimes when watching a horror movie, the minor setbacks can be taken with a grain of salt when creativity and smarts shine through the cracks. “You’re Next” of one of those. The uneven acting and slow start eventually fade away when you’re having so much fun watching a character who actually fights back against the psychos rather than bend to their will in cowardice. This is the kind of horror movie best enjoyed with a big group of friends (and/or audience) for the full experience.

3/4

Evil Dead (2013) Review

Evil Dead (2013)

The “Evil Dead” trilogy from “Spider-Man” director Sam Raimi is one of the more famous in the horror genre, not the least of which is because each installment is so different from the last. While the starter is a straightforward brutal horror movie, its sequels would play up comedy in increasing amounts until the concluder “Army of Darkness” contained very little traces of horror anymore. Now, as much as I love the first one, and it is still a great little B-movie, the crudeness of its appearance makes it riper for a reimagining than many other hallowed horror classics. With that in mind, the prospect of young blood coming in to rejuvenate the original in remake form had me excited, particularly because newcomer Fede Alvarez was determined to return to the horror elements that begin the trilogy.

After a prologue that establishes the grim mood, Alaverz and his co-writer Rodo Sayagues admirably avoid the cliché of kids going to a cabin in the woods to party. There is a real reason for this group to go there: their friend Mia is attempting to kick a drug habit cold turkey with the help of them and her estranged brother David. This provides a bit more of a backbone to the characters than I expected, and I appreciated that there was an attempt at creating actual characters we can care for.

From there, as is expected in an “Evil Dead” movie, they find the book of the dead, someone reads it, and then it all hits the fan. Or at least it should have. The largest problem here, and one that looms over the whole movie once the demons are unleashed, is that every time the movie feels like its gearing up to the next level by building momentum it stops dead in its tracks. There is a pervasive start-stop-start-stop feeling to the pacing that often kills the excitement and tension that previously looked like it was building, leaving only the dread-induced atmosphere to carry it along when the thrust lets up.

Taken as individual parts and scenes, the set pieces are fairly impressive on their own. If there is one thing that is unquestionably great about this remake, and boy is it incredible, is the gore factor. Raimi’s first two “Evil Dead” movies certainly let the blood flow liberally (to put it mildly), but they look restrained in comparison to the torrent of violence and gore on display here. Alvarez achieves all of this almost entirely through practical effects, and the hard work put into them pays off with their startling shock value and cringe inducing moments. Once the climax draws closer, it only gets more and more over-the-top until reaching a final kill that is spectacular in its gleeful abandon.

Alvarez’s heart is in the right place, and his intentions to diversify his iteration from the 1981 original (when he isn’t referencing or recreating specific bits) are mostly successful, although even he can’t escape many of the tired tropes of the genre. Some of the more effectively done jump scares are often overshadowed by hackneyed ones, and the movie has a couple look-away-look-back scares too many, as well as another predictable bit with a mirror. Also, and skip to the next paragraph if you want to avoid a minor spoiler, the black character is once again the first to die. Come on, this is 2013, we should be over this by now.

Even with these issues, this remake of “Evil Dead” can be enjoyed if entered with the right mindset. There are certainly many callbacks to the originals, although this definitely feels more like Alvarez’s “Evil Dead” than Raimi’s “Evil Dead.” The gore and violence is very extreme, so the faint of heart (and stomach) will want to skip out. Additionally, the tone is one of dark horror, so don’t go in expecting the slapstick humor that was injected into “Evil Dead 2.” This is a hardcore effort in mainstream horror, where horror movies are usually toned down for mass audiences, that is often fairly entertaining even though it doesn’t all come together into an unrelenting stream of suspense.

2.5/4

Mama (2013) Review

“Mama”

Guillermo del Toro is a man who genuinely loves horror movies. Even when he isn’t making horror movies of his own (such as “Pans Labyrinth” and “The Devil’s Backbone”), he is producing original horror works by newcomer directors. Even though not all of them have been of consistent quality (for every great “The Orphanage” there is an average “Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark”), there has been a constant theme of horror mixed with the dark fantasy that his directed work is known for. His new producing effort, “Mama,” is closer to the lower end of the spectrum, although it’s positive virtues are strong enough to counterbalance the many stumbles along the way.

Through a series of events that start with the 2008 financial crisis, a father kills his wife and coworkers and then takes off with his two daughters. The three of them mysteriously disappear and aren’t heard from for five years. During that time, the father’s twin brother has been tirelessly searching for them, to the irritation of his punk rocker girlfriend since the two of them are strapped for cash. When the girls are miraculously found alive, they are put under their uncle’s care in a house where they can be observed and reintegrated back into society. However, the ghostly being, who the girls call Mama, that looked after them all these years isn’t too keen on them being taken away, and begins terrorizing the couple.

Ironically, despite being ostensibly a horror movie, “Mama” is more successful and compelling when it comes to the characters and the initial premise than it is when it turns up the scares. The traditional trappings and beats of other ghost and haunted house movies are frequently hit, so there is a been-there-done-that vibe that has to be overcome. While director Andres Muschietti (adapting his own short film) doesn’t have a grasp on suspense like the best horror directors out there, he has verve to carry out these sequences to creepy enough effect, and conceives of a few creative bits. The one that stood out the most was a sly camera trick where it appears as if the two sisters are playing with a blanket, only for us to see the uncle’s girlfriend, Annabel, and the other sister in the opposite room.

Unfortunately, these scares are rather spaciously spread apart, which leaves some sections of the movie hanging with dead air. But thankfully, the acting and character development is uncharacteristically above average for a horror picture. The actresses playing sisters Victoria and Lilly, Megan Charpentier and Isabelle Nelisse respectively, do a superb job of portraying both the feral and sweet sides of these girls. Their first appearance after the five-year gap is arguably scarier than any of Mama’s ghostly tricks, primarily due to the convincingly wild and animalistic acting on the part of these two girls. It also helps that the Oscar nominated Jessica Chastain is playing Annabel. Annabel’s contentious relationship with the girls and her unease about being shoved into a mother role she didn’t ask for provides a compelling backbone to latch onto. Annabel could have easily been unlikable and annoying in the hands of a lesser actress, but Chastain is able to walk that fine line by absolutely selling her character’s transformation.

While the core plot dynamics are solid, Muschietti is unsteady when it comes to exploring Mama herself. There are points where it seems like he did not know how to incorporate some background details or a necessary character action, so he awkwardly shoehorns in unexplained visions for an exposition dump. And when the plot arrives at its conclusion, the ideas behind this end point are certainly unique, although the execution could have been refined. The special effects become overly elaborate, and the tone shifts suddenly from out-and-out horror to something closer to one of del Toro’s dark fantasies. Had the presence of these fantasy elements been emphasized previously rather than rely on the usual ghost movie scares, this shift would have felt more natural.

Because of these deficiencies, I would not exactly call “Mama” a particularly good horror movie. With that said, I greatly appreciated Muschietti’s ability to create well-developed characters (a rarity in this genre) and inject some creativity even amid the more familiar parts. I would like to see what he could do in a future film, perhaps taking more time to refine the screenplay, since it looks like he has the talent to pull off something more noteworthy. “Mama” is not exactly a smash debut for the man, though it shows glimmers of promise for what he could possibly achieve, which is more than I can say for the hacks typically hired to churn out a fast and cheap studio horror movie.

2.5/4

Sinister (2012) Review

“Sinister”

Found footage horror movies are all the rage these days. “Paranormal Activity 4” just started its inevitably profitable run almost a week ago, and there have been several others released earlier in the year. One that slipped under the radar, which came out a few weeks back, was “Sinister,” although possibly that’s because it’s not your typical found footage movie. It has long sections of grainy home video playing out with creepy imagery, but that’s because the true main character is watching them, and the real story is about him and his family.

Ellison is a true crime writer who had his big break years ago with his first book, where he tracked down the real killer in a case and saved the innocent suspect being held accountable. However, in one of his follow-up books, he attempted a similar investigation, except in this case got the innocent man killed and the real killer set free. With his name disgraced and on the bad side of cops in local towns, he needs another hit bad in order to redeem himself. An opportunity comes up when an entire family is murdered and their daughter goes missing, so Ellison moves his family into their house and begins his research. Once he finds a box full of home videos with the murders on them though, weird things start happening around the house.

By blending elements of found footage, the supernatural, and even dashes of slasher movies sprinkled throughout, “Sinister” takes familiar facets of the genre and makes them work without feeling derivative. It even smartly sidesteps some of the frustrations that people have with horror genre (“Leave the house,” “Call the cops,” etc.) by providing rational explanations for why the family wouldn’t do these things. If anything, the family drama scenes are arguably the best ingredients in the plot. Too often, horror movies let the stock stereotypes define the characters and cost by on the throwaway banter between them, but “Sinister” manages to make you legitimately care about these people. The relationships between Ellison and his wife and kids are palpable, and the flawed characterization of Ellison makes him a much more interesting character to watch than most horror characters.

This strong characterizations and acting (courtesy of Ethan Hawke and Juliet Rylance) is important because they are able to sustain the film’s plot even when the horror parts don’t work as well as they could. Director Scott Derrickson, who also wrote the script with C. Robert Cargill (former film critic of Aint It Cool News and Spill.com), has created a whole mythology for the demon at the center of the film, Bughuul, a terrifying creation with his dark, angled eyes and pale visage. His appearances are very effective, lending an air of menace to the video footage, on top of the already chilling imagery of watching the original families being murdered. Derrickson understands the simple creepiness of little movements and sounds, establishing a strong sense of mood and atmosphere, as well as dolling out gruesome and disturbing blood moments without being gratuitous.

Where Derrickson stumbles is keeping the momentum and pace at the right pitch. The majority of the first two acts is Ellison watching the video footage; creepy enough on its own but less so in creating an air of danger to the main characters. To counteract this, jump scares are often applied to break up the tension, and some are well used while others are there just to give the audience a cheap jolt. At nearly two hours, the film could have used some editing trims and maybe even some script polish to compress events to create a more fluid plot momentum, as well as dialing back the cheaper scares that aren’t necessary.

Even with this overstretched buildup, by the time the final stretch rolls along, Derrickson and Cargill have concocted some clever tricks up their sleeve to make the experience worthwhile with a proper payoff. The climax isn’t a clichéd chase and fight for survival, but conceived as an event with more subtle and, yes, sinister intentions. I won’t be surprised if this ending polarizes audiences, as some will love it (as I do) while others will probably not jive well with it. For myself, even with the somewhat repetitive and slow beginning and middle (at least in terms of the horror), the outcome was worth it and because I cared about these characters, I remained invested in the story all throughout. For those that are perhaps tired of the “Paranormal Activity” franchise (of which I still haven’t seen the new one), “Sinister” is a worthwhile and very recommended horror alternative for Halloween time.

3/4

Frankenweenie (2012) Review

“Frankenweenie”

Tim Burton’s career is a story of contradictions. When he attempts adapting other people’s material (“Alice in Wonderland,” “Batman,” “Planet of the Apes”) he consistently finds immense financial success, although considerably less on the critical front. His more personal and original material (“Edward Scissorhands,” “Beetlejuice,” “Ed Wood”) find much more love in the people that see them, but are also less commercially popular than the adaptations. This is a shame, as these movies display his clear passion for filmmaking and the story that most of the adaptations don’t always show. “Frankenweenie” joins those movies of his that I will gladly encourage others to see because few seem to be taking notice of it.

The film is actually an animated, feature length remake of a live action short that Burton created before his filmic career took off. Science whiz Victor Frankenstein (the film is unashamed about taking names from classic horror characters) is a bit of a loner boy at his school whose best friend is his dog Sparky. When Sparky is accidently run over by a car, it deals a heavy blow to Victor. While watching his science teacher perform an experiment at school, Victor gets the idea to perform the same experiment on Sparky and bring him back to life. The procedure works and the two reunite, but now Victor has to deal with hiding his reanimated pet from jealous students and others who “wouldn’t understand.”

In a way, I don’t blame people who may have become weary of Burton. As a director with a career that spans over 25 years, he has never really stepped too far out of his bag of gothic tricks. The majority of his films have displayed a similar and consistent (some would say tired) visual style with dark art direction and actors often caked in white makeup. “Frankenweenie” most likely won’t deter the naysayers, as anyone who has seen “Corpse Bride” or the Burton-produced “Nightmare Before Christmas” will be familiar with the stop-motion animation being employed here. As someone who hasn’t become fatigued with his work (even though his recent work can be uneven in quality,) I thoroughly enjoyed “Frankenweenie” a lot. Much like the recent “Paranorman,” it is an animated film with an obvious love for the horror genre. But while “Paranorman” was an adoration for the zombie and slasher movies, “Frankenweenie” is more concerned with the lore of the more classic horror monsters. Much of the plot mirrors that of “Frankenstein,” and there are many other elements and nods throughout to “Dracula,” “The Mummy,” and “The Invisible Man.”

Not to be limited to just the old fashioned creatures, Burton goes all out in the finale and envisions a climax worthy of the giant monster movies like “Godzilla,” and he even sneaks in a “Gremlins” bit that had me cackling with laughter. The stop-motion work is absolutely stellar in this sequence with its flawlessly smooth movement and creative designs, and the fact that it’s done in black and white further fits it in with the old-school atmosphere that Burton wants to recreate.

All that technical work would be all for naught though if we didn’t feel attached the characters, and Burton’s care for them shines throughout. A criticism I often have of Burton’s adaptations is that his heart doesn’t seem all that in them (“Planet of the Apes” and “Alice in Wonderland” especially), and this is thankfully not the case here. The relationship between Victor and Sparky is heartfelt and genuine, and even the scenes with just Sparky wandering around on his own are effective thanks to the subtle animation expressions on his face and the playful sense of mischievous humor that Burton fans should be familiar with.

While I like “Frankenweenie” a great deal and think it’s really good, I think it just stops short of true greatness due to a couple factors. The biggest issue is the middle section of the story after Sparky is revived, where Burton and writer John August seem unsure of where to take the plot and let it meander around for a while until we build to the climatic confrontations. Also, and this isn’t so much of an issue with the film on its own as it is with comparisons to another, after seeing “Paranorman” be able to achieve so many creative avenues with its story and homages to horror, “Frankenweenie” plays it rather safe for the majority of the time until the last act arrives. Again, these comparisons are inevitable when two films with similar goals come out at the same time, so don’t take that last one too harshly. “Frankenweenie” is certainly a quality movie to check out for fans of dark family fare, and even more so if you’re a dog lover or enjoy Tim Burton’s unique vision.

3/4

The Loved Ones (2012) Review

“The Loved Ones”

Horror is a tough genre to work within. It’s hard just to make a good horror movie, and it seems like it’s even harder to get the good ones released. With the exceptions of “The Woman in Black” (which I thought was decent, not great) and “The Cabin in the Woods” (fantastic) this year, we have seen the releases of such lackluster efforts as “Chernobyl Diaries,” “The Devil Inside” and “The Silent House.” As those lesser ones were being put into theaters, I kept hearing word that “The Loved Ones,” which had been getting great reviews, wasn’t getting a theatrical showing. Now that I’ve had the chance to catch the movie on DVD, it’s even more maddening that such an effective thriller was dumped while studios thought something like the awful, generic “The Apparition” was worthy of a thousand theater screens.

The main story is rather simple. Prom is very near, and students are getting excited for the event. Lola asks Brent, our protagonist, to the prom, but he is already going with his girlfriend Holly. Lola doesn’t take too kindly to this, and she and her father kidnap Brent so they can have a prom of their own at her house. Beyond that, there are more character developments that come into play later on, so it’s best just to go in knowing only the basic premise. There’s no final twist or game-changing revelations, but there is more going on under-the-surface that enriches the plot.

What sets “The Loved Ones” apart from the usual horror crop is its relative avoidance of the clichés of the genre. Apart from a dumb decision or two on the part of the main character, the film doesn’t rely on unlikable stereotypes, predictable beats, or overplayed jump scares to carry itself along. The best of the genre doesn’t merely show horrific acts or calculate it’s suspenseful moments; it gets under your skin, finding the sweet spots that unnerve rather than disgust. Brent, acted by Xavier Samuel, earns a lot of sympathy from the audience early on, meaning that the ordeals he goes through later are even more effective and hard to watch.

This isn’t to say that “The Loved Ones” is light on the red stuff. There are certainly choice moments that are pretty gross, but director Sean Byrne doesn’t dwell on them longer than they need to be. While looking at the trailer gives the suggestion of a “Saw”-like series of tortures (which isn’t entirely untrue,) Byrne understands that the scariest parts are the ones we don’t see. Unlike other horror directors that try this but often feel like they’re holding back, Byrne knows precisely what to obscure and when to cut away at the right times.

In addition to that, there are some creepy elements to the life of Lola (played by Robin McLeavy, who is frighteningly effective at switching between sweet and menacing) that are insinuated to the audience. John Brumpton’s weird performance as her father suggests there’s something “more” between them just from the subtle facial expressions he shows, as well as there being a bizarre character named Bright Eyes, who may or may not be Lola’s mom (the movie only hints at who she is, rather than plainly stating.)

I don’t typically review video releases, although “The Loved Ones” is too good to ignore in light of the fact that it was denied a theatrical release and wasn’t paid the attention it so rightly deserves. While “Cabin in the Woods” was a creative and totally unique shot-in-the-arm to the horror genre, it was more of a “fun” type of horror movie. “The Loved Ones” is the flip side of that, satisfying audiences who crave for “pure” frights and scares rather than meta-jokes and gimmicks.

3.5/4

ParaNorman (2012) Review

-->

ParaNorman

Animated movies aimed towards children but don’t talk down to children are a rarity. Typically, animated children’s movies are filled with broad slapstick and silly circumstances because it’s often assumed that children will only hold their attention for colorful chaos. Sometimes though, a movie such as “ParaNorman” comes along that not only doesn’t treat child like dim bulbs, but also trusts that they can deal with more mature subject matter.

Norman is a bit of an odd child. Not only does he have a strong affinity for horror movies, books, etc. (particularly zombies), but he also has the ability to talk to dead people. Unfortunately, no one else can, so he is often berated by his father (who thinks he needs to “move on” from his grandmother’s death) and the school bullies on a daily basis. Soon his powers will have to be used for greater purposes though, as the resident witch spirit has come back to enact revenge on the town who murdered her 300 years before.

Fans of the 2009 animated venture “Coraline” (and by extension “The Nightmare Before Christmas”) should feel right at home with the creepy, horror-lite vibe of “ParaNorman.” It’s certainly not a coincidence that both were developed by animation house Laika, who are quickly carving out their place in the animation field amidst Pixar and Dreamworks. A large portion of the appeal of “ParaNorman” stems from its unabashed love for the horror genre, whether it’s from the funny opening movie-within-the movie and cute little references sprinkled throughout. Norman’s use of the “Halloween” theme as his cell ringtone put a big smile on my face.

The film is also unafraid of going to some macabre and dark places. This is still very much a PG-rated affair, but it doesn’t shy away from the moments that will undoubtedly freak out some of the little ones in the theater (although the ones in mine seemed pretty thick-skinned). The stop-motion animation technique was a perfect choice for creating the world of “ParaNorman,” allowing for the type of angular and bizarre designs that flesh out the eerie settings and monsters to good effect. There’s a tactile feel to the stop-motion animation that couldn’t have been achieved with the industry standard computer animation.

While there is certainly a focus on the creepy and the freaky in “ParaNorman,” there is also plenty of humor to balance things out. Truth be told, the jokes could have been stronger. Although it generally gets stronger and wittier as the plot continues along, the first half has multiple obvious jokes (“How’s it hanging,” says Norman to a ghost that is stuck on a tree). However, I do give the film a huge amount of credit for allowing the kid characters to talk like kids actually do. There’s no mild cursing a la “The Goonies,” but the humor (mostly later on) is remarkably more subversive than the trailers would indicate without using it as a crutch to lean on.

By the time the plot really gets rolling and Norman uncovers the truths behind certain characters, “ParaNorman” becomes unexpectedly moving. The zombies descending on the town become more than just lumbering monsters, and a late scene between Norman and the witch is at turns both intense and touching, revealing a level of dimension that gives the film staying power beyond the jokes and endearing characters. If you’re a fan of animation (and who isn’t really?), there is a great chance you will enjoy “ParaNorman,” and if you’re a horror fan then you will like it even more.

3.5/4