Review | Krampus Origins

/ Harrison Abbott / Leave a comment

Even by the miserable standards of other Folkloric characters, Krampus has a particularly wretched cinematic legacy. On second thought, ‘’cinematic’’ might not be the most appropriate term for his outings. After all, whilst the festive menace has certainly appeared in his fair share of films, he’s only graced multiplex screens on one occasion. This was for Michael Dougherty’s supremely enjoyable, 2015 Horror-Comedy, Krampus, which can be distinguished as ‘’the only proper one’’.

Continue reading →

Hollywood’s Unhealthy Obsession With Movie Ratings Needs to End

/ Harrison Abbott / Leave a comment

This was originally published at Flickering Myth on 13 October 2018.

From a sanitised Die Hard sequel to an R-rated Star Trek, when it comes to ratings Hollywood is incapable of leaving well enough alone.

The Dark Age of PG-13-ification

Alien Vs Predator, The Expendables 3, World War Z, Max Payne, Live Free or Die Hard, Prom Night (2008), Terminator Genisys, Total Recall (2012). If I were to ask you what underlying factor links together those films, how would you respond? Aside from by saying that they’re all distinctly mediocre or outright terrible. Granted that is a very salient point, but there’s something more specific unifying this miserable bunch.

Indeed, the true commonality here is that each of these limp releases was infamously neutered by their respective studios, all for the sake of lowering the MPAA rating. With conspicuously absent violence and embarrassingly-censored language, these sanitized misfires all fell completely flat. This is because they were forced to sacrifice their integrity at the altar of an ill-fitting PG-13 certificate.

You may recall a time when this undignified fate was imposed upon most blockbusters. After all, it used to be standard practice for the industry to water down explicitly mature properties, in order to make them more palatable to younger viewers. This was especially true around the turn of the millennium, when Hollywood inexplicably convinced itself that R-ratings were no longer profitable and so turned its back on them altogether.

This arbitrary mindset lead to studios sabotaging their own products, so that they could appeal to a broader audience and maximise ticket sales. There was a subsequent pandemic of lameness, with iconic horrors being reduced to tame, bloodless affairs (The Fog) and action flicks transforming into timid shadows of their former selves (Taken 2).

Fans were naturally opposed to the trend and yearned for the halcyon days of high body-counts, graphic decapitations and liberally deployed F-bombs. But it wasn’t just the ‘’basement dwellers’’ complaining either, as slowly-but-surely everyone became sick of the dreaded ‘’PG-13-ification’’. This fatigue extended from the general public, to professional reviewers and even filmmakers themselves, who felt like they were being routinely hamstrung.

The Triumphant R-Resurgence

However, you’ve probably noticed a dramatic shift occurring in the last few years, with the pendulum swinging in the other direction entirely. Now, studios can’t get enough of R-ratings and are trying to cram as much NSFW content into their releases as humanly possible. They’re even going so far as to commission reshoots and alternative cuts, all with the express purpose of bumping up the certificate. It’s like they’ve done a complete 180!

This seismic change can largely be attributed to the earth-shattering success of Deadpool, the plucky underdog that surpassed all box-office expectations back in 2016. Indeed, off the back of the watershed hit, Hollywood has been (re)convinced that ‘’mature’’ films can be commercially viable. By extension, the potty-mouthed sensation has almost single-handedly ushered in a new era of R-rated supremacy and everybody wants a piece of the action.

As a result, the industry is currently in the midst of a veritable frenzy, with studios going out of their way to find any edgy or risque franchises to call their own. In fact, the R-rating has now become a badge of honour among movies: one that is synonymous with cool; fun; and daringness. In comparison, having a PG-13 just makes you look kind of stuffy and behind-the-times.

History Repeats Itself

As one of those whiners who spent years lamenting the ostracism of the R-rating, I can attest that this transition has been vindicating. What’s more, some truly fantastic films have spawned from the mania, ones that would have otherwise been unthinkable, like the recent It adaptation and Logan.

Still, it would be naive to think that studios have learned their lesson. Sure, they’ve gleaned something from the merc-with-a-mouth’s lucrative performance, yet the conclusion they’ve arrived at is typically misguided and simplistic. They should have realised the value of taking risks and of placing greater confidence in their filmmakers. They should have seen the error of their ways and resolved to no longer tamper with art. But instead, they are now under the impression that an R-rating is the be-all-and-end-all and that gore, nudity, or profanity will automatically make their films more popular. Which is why they’re now trying to compel their productions into meeting this criteria.

Because make no mistake, they’re still interfering with movies and feebly trying to contrive ways of second-guessing the market. The only difference is that they’re now doing it in the inverse direction and want everything to be ‘’hardcore’’, irrespective of whether it makes any goddamn sense! I mean, just look at some of these proposed reimaginings: R-rated Star Trek; R-rated Transformers, R-rated Superman! It’s madness.

Just like Alien Vs Predator never suited a PG-13, these properties have absolutely no business adopting a restricted certificate. Having Bumblebee say “Fuck” isn’t going to improve things for the Transformers series, it’s just going to feel awkward and jarring. Likewise, Star Trek is supposed to be a hopeful and optimistic vision of the future: one built on notions of tolerance; open-mindedness; and peaceful cohabitation. So to reconfigure the whole thing as a gritty nightmare about the “Horrors of Space” would be a betrayal of its very essence.

In fact, slapping an out-of-place R over the top of Star Trek will cause just as much damage as stripping the R away from Die Hard did. The principle remains the same, as the industry is still meddling with its films and is still prioritising those MPAA ratings over their creative instinct.

Whilst having an R might be in vogue right now, that doesn’t negate the fact that each movie needs to be assessed on its own terms! Some, like Star Wars or Spider-Man, ought to be suitable for consumption by anyone. They’re innocent adventure stories and need to have a lighter feel that’s in keeping with that tone. Contrastingly, things like The Raid, John Wick, or Kingsman absolutely rely on being able to push the boat out and so need the flexibility that a higher certificate provides.

The thing is, producers should be able to easily identify which of their properties fall into which camp. Yet they have repeatedly demonstrated that they are incapable of making these judgements sensibly. First they thought that a Robocop remake would be worthwhile without the blood, and now they seem to think that the key to salvaging Transformers is to have Optimus Prime orchestrate a gang-bang or something. Frankly, if a person believes that such a franchise (which let me remind you, is based on a toyline) would benefit from an R-rating, then they’re probably not the right person to be helming that particular project. Honestly, the situation is getting out of hand. And should things carry on in this vein, then R-mania is going to have just as many casualties as PG-13-ification ever did.

R-Ratings Are Not a Magic Fix

Of course, we all know this isn’t really about the improving quality of films. No, if an adult Transformers ever does materialise, then it won’t be a creatively-motivated decision. On the contrary, it’ll be the result of some cynical executive sticking their nose in and deciding that such a venture would increase their profit margins. Why? Because Rs are the “in thing” right now and there’s no artistic justification beyond that.

Speaking of which, does anyone else feel like these transparent attempts to ride on Deadpool’s coattails are becoming increasingly desperate? Look at The Happytime Murders. Its marketing was wholly dependent upon the viewer being attracted to lazy dick jokes and other tired, raunchy gags. The fact that they didn’t shown anything especially funny was presumably irrelevant, because it was R and that was meant to be enough. It’s all the trailer had to work with and it milked that selling point for every last drop, practically screaming “Look, we’re edgy! We’ve got swearing! Please like us!”

Worse still, a lot of people seem to be drinking the Kool-Aid on this one. You can already see pundits getting carried away, placing far too much weight on the intrinsic merit of an R, as if they expect it to inherently lead to better movies. For instance, there’s a staggering amount of articles out there suggesting that Venom’s fate ultimately hinged on whether it would attain a restricted certificate, like that alone would have made the difference between it being a bad or good film. Likewise, The Predator was swept up in a similar discussion and when we all discovered that it actually was going to be an R, then the delirious excitement this generated ended up overshadowing the more important things: like the troubling behind the scenes rumours and the well-documented reshoots. Even decade-old movies are now being roped into the discussion, with Nic Cage positing that Ghost Rider would have been more bearable had it only been an R (I suppose that’d be true if you ignore the bad screenwriting, lackluster direction and poor VFX).

But in the end a certificate couldn’t save Venom, nor would it have ever rescued Ghost Rider. For adult content alone is not enough to centre a movie on. Admittedly, when used well things like violence can complement a film, but in these instances it’s just the icing on the cake. Now that might seem obvious to you, but it’s a lesson that the industry could do with internalising. After all, as long as they continue to steer films into specific ratings (be it G, PG-13, or R), then they are just shooting themselves in the foot.

Obviously there are some caveats to this. Like if Paul King wanted to open Pandington 3 with unsimulated oral sex, then it would probably be wise for someone to intervene. But unless directors intend on doing something that blatantly inappropriate (you know, like a fucking R-rated Star Trek), then producers should simply let the creative process take its natural course. Because ratings need to be earned organically and more importantly, they should always be the end-result of unfettered artistic decisions. Not the other way around.

Review | For the Love of the Boogeyman: 40 Years of Halloween

/ Harrison Abbott / Leave a comment

Although it clearly comes from a place of love, For the Love of the Boogeyman is a shallow documentary that has little new to offer.

Support Us!
This Film:
Editing Software: http://geni.us/GxgvNAv
Amazon: http://geni.us/Pch7G3M

These links are affiliate links – by clicking them we will receive a small commission at no cost to you.

Ask any genre enthusiast to break down the success of Halloween and they are all-but-guaranteed to have a full-blown thesis prepared for such an occasion. With notes by their side, they will readily launch into an impassioned sermon; expounding upon the film’s merit as a cinematic milestone and waxing poetic about everything from its economic use of lighting, to its meticulous framing and atmospheric score.

Indeed, there’s no shortage of people lining up to feleate Carpenter’s iconic masterwork. I myself wrote a particularly conceited essay about it at University, despite being unable to formulate a remotely compelling argument. I just ended up reiterating what countless others had already articulated before me and ultimately failed to say anything more insightful than ”that Michael Myers is well creepy!’

Unfortunately, a similar critique can be leveled at For the Love of the Boogeyman, a sycophantic documentary that tellingly markets itself as being made ‘by fans and for the fans”. Translation: ”it’s a fawning circle-jerk, with little-to-no substance and a startling lack of fresh perspective”.  So in that sense, it is strikingly reminiscent of my flimsy uni assignment, only much longer and with less uses of the word ”thus”.

You see, there’s no illuminating analysis to speak of here, just people repeating variations on the phrase ”first and last word in genre film-making”. Which would be fine if you were doing a quick review or perhaps a blog post. But there’s not enough meat on those bones to justify a paltry video-essay, never mind a 40 minute project comprised of dozens of interviewees!

What’s worse is that, over the course of the piece, alternate readings are never even hinted at, giving it a very narrow view. This is partly because the talking heads are all interchangeable, with comparable interests and matching opinions. Consequently, they all approach the material from the same, bland position. There’s no contrast to the discussion here. No variety. No back and forth. Just people rabbiting on in circles about how much they love a 40 year-old movie.

Given that none of the presenters actually worked on Halloween, you would think that they’d at least have interesting takes to make their commentary worth listening to. But they don’t! They just offer banal praise of every facet of the film-making, like they’re dutifully ticking off all the Oscar categories or something.

”The acting is great. And the directing is great. And the cinematography is great. And the production design is great. And the music is great. And the best animated film is great!’ If you want to simulate the experience of watching For the Love of the Boogeyman, simply copy and paste that quote about 200 times and you’ll get the picture.

It’s just a surface-level appraisal that only serves to endorse a pre-established consensus. No one needs to be told that Halloween is a fantastic movie, that’s pretty well cemented by now. If that’s all you’ve got to say, then your project has more in common with an episode of Collider Movie Talk than it does with an actual documentary.

Although this shortcoming is disappointing, it isn’t necessarily a deal-breaker. After all, it can be nice to listen to people talk passionately about something they love, even if they don’t have anything especially original to contribute. What severely hampers Boogeyman however, is the fact that its interviewees deliver near-identical soundbites throughout.

It turns out that they’re not only on the same page as one another, but sometimes the exact same fucking sentence! Every time that someone comments on a specific aspect of the movie- be it Jamie Lee Curtis’ formidable performance, the unknowable presence of The Shape, or the way that synth music acts as a metaphorical voice for Michael Myers- you then have to listen to that same point being repeated ad nauseum by about 20 other people Before long  you start to feel like you’re in some kind of hellish echo chamber.

Of course, it’s only natural that people will have similar feelings when talking about one of the greatest horror films ever made. The talking heads aren’t necessarily to blame for that. But if you’re the person putting this documentary together, then it’s your job to weed out such duplications.

Speaking of editing, the rhythm of cutting here is awfully distracting, as we’re constantly jumping around between talking heads without a chance to properly settle. You rarely stay with a single person for longer than 10 seconds, so none of them are afforded the opportunity to meaningfully expand upon their arguments or substantiate them with evidence. Sometimes you can even hear them being cut-short mid-sentence, just so they can be interrupted by someone else. It all adds to the insubstantial feeling that presides over the entire documentary, where everything comes across so slight and bitty.

At least the visuals are okay: cycling through different locations and giving us cool memorabilia to look at (kudos to Paul Stier and Nathan Thomas Milliner for the impressive artwork). It would have been nice to have clips from Halloween to better illustrate points and break up the interviews but if there were legal obstructions preventing this from happening, then the production team obviously can’t be blamed for that.

Over all, For the Love of the Boogeyman’s is a rather simplistic and under-cooked offering. You could argue that it’s intention is not really to pick apart its subject, and that it just wants to celebrate the anniversary of a landmark release. But if that’s the case, then there are far more entertaining ways of doing that.

Review | Upgrade

/ Harrison Abbott / Leave a comment

This was originally published at Flickering Myth on 4 September 2018.

As the mastermind behind several modestly-funded hits, like Insidious and the early Saw movies, Leigh Whannel has repeatedly proven that you don’t need the resources of a Hollywood Blockbuster in order to thrill audiences.

Instead, all you need is a strong idea, a little ingenuity and some talented colleagues to help bring your vision to the screen. If all these elements converge, then you should have no trouble competing with high-profile franchises and comic-book adaptations.

Whannel clearly appreciates this, as each of his projects has been made on a shoestring budget. Moreover, whilst his output hasn’t been universally great, he has consistently shown that he is a competent pair of hands and a dependable money-maker to boot. Because of this aptitude for working cheap, he has now garnered enough industry cred to pursue whatever zany passion project takes his fancy.

Which brings us to the writer-turned-director’s latest offering, Upgrade. A genre blending, cyberpunk, revenge flick, this is something that Whannel has been developing for years and like all of his previous work it has generated a lot of buzz despite its relatively humble origins (the estimated budget is somewhere around the $5 million mark, which probably wouldn’t cover the catering for most blockbusters). Praised for its intriguing premise and stylised hyper-violence, the film has already established a cult following, with many pundits suggesting that it puts its more expensive peers to shame.

Now- two months after its US release- Upgrade is debuting overseas, which means that the rest of the world can finally jump aboard the hype train. But is the unassuming thriller really worth all the pomp and circumstance?

Set in a future that is just around the corner, the film focuses on Grey (Logan Marshall-Green), a technophobe who has the misfortune of living in a society completely dominated by computers. Law enforcement is reliant upon drone surveillance, smart houses take care of their own upkeep and even recreational drug use has been supplanted by an addiction to VR. Everything is ostensibly smoother and more convenient, yet Grey remains ever-sceptical and yearns for the golden age of vinyl records, analogue devices and vehicles that require actual human drivers.

One day, after refurbishing an old car for a famous tech guru, Grey is treated to a showcase of the inventor’s latest creation; an AI chip named STEM. The scientist excitedly explains that the revolutionary implant can be inserted into a person’s body to serve as a kind of secondary brain, giving the recipient enhanced motor skills, heightened agility and even increased intelligence. Of course, Grey is characteristically cynical about this and suggests that mankind doesn’t really need such an upgrade.

This attitude changes however, when a fateful car accident leaves both Grey and his wife susceptible to violent criminals. In an ensuing attack, the former is left paralysed from the waist down and the latter is tragically killed.

Determined to track down his mysterious assailants, the bereaved husband abandons his old-fashioned ideals and volunteers as a Guinea pig for STEM, in the hope that he can regain his ability to walk and get revenge. In the process, he finds that he is not only restored to his original condition, but that he has even been augmented with incredible new skills. Now armed with superhuman senses, a proficiency in martial arts and the capacity to switch off his pain receptors, Grey decides to find his wife’s killers and assassinate them in increasingly gory ways.

Right off the bat, it’s fair to say that the premise is absolutely terrific, like Death Wish crossed with a particularly good episode of Black Mirror. Yet that only gives you a rough idea of what’s in store and to spoil the interesting twists would be a disservice to Whannel’s sharp writing and inventive storytelling.

Sure the surface-level gist of ‘’spouse-on-a quest-for-revenge’’ has been trotted out a thousand times before in cinema, but here it’s all being presented with a fresh coat of cybernetic-enhanced paint. After all, the movie’s core gimmick changes everything from how the investigation scenes play out, to how the protagonist conceals his vigilantism from the police.

Best of all though is how the idea affects the action sequences, which are all expertly shot, masterfully choreographed and dizzyingly energetic. To give you a flavour of what makes these moments so special, Grey can hand over total control to STEM whenever he is faced with confrontation. Once the AI takes the wheel in these scenarios, then our hero is transformed into a perfect killing machine, capable of mesmerising acrobatics, astonishing brutality and predicting his opponent’s next move with the utmost accuracy.

As is to be expected, the resultant fights are pleasingly ferocious, if a little infrequent and too short (the slow pacing is a bit of an issue). They are also strangely funny as well, because STEM is unable to influence anything above Grey’s neck, and so the system has to manually move his head out of the way to dodge incoming blows. This makes for a unique visual, reminiscent of something from a slapstick cartoon. It’s also amusing to see the squeamish hero forced into the role of a bemused observer, powerless as his own independently limbs flail around and cause all kinds of mayhem.

With these enjoyably kinetic scenes, Whannel demonstrates that a low-budget needn’t be an obstacle to creativity and he also gives Marshall-Green a proper opportunity to show off his surprising comedic muscles. On that note, the actor’s animated depiction of a man constantly amazed by his own actions injects welcome levity into a character that could otherwise be quite dour and unlikeable. That being said, he’s still very good at carrying the film through its more emotional beats when the need arises.

Elsewhere, every of other aspect of Upgrade is spot on. The believable sci-fi setting is remarkably well-thought out and realistic. There are no jetpacks, no flying cars, or spaceships, just tiny little details like surgeons who use X-ray contact lenses to perform operations.

This is a smart decision on the part of the screenwriter, as the refreshingly grounded approach allows the film to tackle some fairly ambitious themes in its second half, examining humanity’s dependence on technology and whether or not we are making ourselves obsolete. In fact, as the film moves towards its climax, it becomes less concerned with set-pieces and instead dedicates itself to a more cerebral breed of science-fiction.

It then all culminates in a darkly shocking ending that will stay with you for days. In this sense, it’s a rare film that actually disguises its intelligence and demonstrates that being clever and being fun don’t have to be mutually exclusive concepts.