MY SOUL TO TAKE – 2010 - WES CRAVEN’S BEST, WORST OR WATCHABLE?

Wes Craven has a long and inconsistent career as a director and writer of horror films. His early 70’s films, Last House on the Left (1972) and The Hills Have Eyes (1977) are now considered horror classics, but I never liked either of them. Craven’s 80’s film highlights consist of Swamp Thing (1982), A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) and Shocker (1989), all of which I consider mediocre at best. In the 90’s Craven not only did a lot of Television work, but still directed The People Under the Stairs (1991), New Nightmare (1994), Vampire in Brooklyn (1995), Scream (1996) and Scream 2 (1997). I found the first two films unwatchable and the vampire comedy dreadfully unfunny, but Craven’s satires of the slasher genre that he had a hand in creating to me are his best and most original films. In the 2000’s Craven released Scream 3 (2000), Cursed (2005), the thriller Red Eye (2005) and finally My Soul to Take (2010). I personally liked all of these, but My Soul to Take has got to be his most maligned film yet.

I was concerned that perhaps this time the critics were right and that My Soul to Take was indeed Craven’s “most dull, joyless, and formulaic” film to date. I waited for its Blu-ray release and rented it from Netflix, just to be on the safe side. Once again, the vast majority of film reviewers did not get this latest Craven poignant epitome. I can only reason that because it is more subtle than his Scream films, they thought it was just another “dead teenager” film and dismissed it before even watching it.

The film begins sixteen years in the past, with a man named Abel who is suffering from multiple personalities and kills his wife, but doesn’t remember doing it. Just as he is about to stab his daughter to death, Paterson and other cops burst in to the master bedroom and shoot Abel. Abel fools Paterson and Dr. Blake (who Abel had called for help) into letting their guard down, and he seizes the cop's gun, shoots Paterson (who is wearing a bulletproof vest) and then the psychiatrist before being shot again. Still alive, Abel is transported to a hospital and springs to life in the back of the ambulance, slashes Jeanne-Baptiste's throat and causes the ambulance to careen out of control. The survivors of the wreck crawl out of the thrashed ambulance only to find Abel has gotten out of his restraints and disappeared. That same night, seven babies were born at a Riverton hospital. Local lore has it that, if the Ripper died that night, one of the seven may harbor the Ripper's evil soul. Thus begins the legend of The Riverton Ripper!
 

The film returns to the present, where one by one the “Riverton Seven” are introduced. Bug is the friendless weird kid in school who may be showing signs of early schizophrenia. Alex is the talkative kid raised by an abusive stepfather and is Bug’s only friend. Penelope is the religious girl, with a secret crush on Bug, who wants to keep her soul prepared should the Ripper return. Brittany is the beautiful girl in class who Bug has a crush on, but is dating the school jock. Brandon is the school jock and likes to bully anyone he considers weak or weird – which of course includes Bug and Alex. Jerome is a blind African-American kid whom most everyone likes, but is still somewhat of an outcast. Jay is an Asian kid who likes to live life in the fast lane and joke around, but no one sees much of because he lives out beyond the tracks.

One by one, the Riverton Seven start dying in horribly violent ways. The first to die is Jay, who has his head slammed twice against the metal side of a bridge and then stabbed in the stomach by the Ripper. The next to die is Penelope, who is grabbed from behind at the school's indoor swimming pool and has her throat slit. Gradually, blame is placed on Bug, when circumstances that I won’t divulge here reveal him to be a prime suspect. After many more revelations and plot twists the film draws to a satisfying conclusion.

I still think that one of the most important and difficult times in a person’s life is that final few years of high school, where you are still deciding what type of adult you are going to be. This is why teenagers tend to form cliques or inner circles that allow them to bond with others of their behavior. My Soul to Take demonstrates this well and maybe it is Bug’s “loser” status that makes him such an relatable character. I really liked the way Craven developed the friendship between Bug and Alex. These two become stronger together and it allows them to deal with the physical abuse of Brandon and the mental abuse of Brittany. Their hardships in high school prepare them for the eventual devastating effects of the murders of their classmates by The Riverton Ripper. Even though “the jock” and “the pretty girl” are only given a small amount of time to develop as characters, you still get an idea of why they act the way they do. One pivotal character, Fang – whose relationship to another major character is revealed as part of a plot twist, so I won’t divulge it here – is shown to be both outwardly antisocial, yet strong-willed in a positive way, as a result of a traumatic event in her childhood. Wes Craven, who wrote the script, has created some familiar archetypes, but also develops them enough to make them feel like real flesh and blood people.

Technically, Wes Craven’s direction of My Soul To Take is exceptional! Even in the early stages of the film, he never spends too much time bogged down in unimportant or trivial details. While the killings are both sudden and brutal, they are not exploitive or needlessly gory. I like it that Craven used storytelling and editing to elicit the fear at the deaths of his characters. Relative newcomer Petra Korner’s cinematography is filled with dark and disturbing imagery; especially during the chase scenes through the woods. I may have felt a certain affinity with the locations, as the entire film was shot on location in Connecticut, not far from the New England woods that I spent much of my time in as a child.

I think that My Soul To Take is a classic example of a veteran filmmaker, who in his prime has made a film that speaks to his own personal concerns and not worried about delivering a film of illimitable commercial appeal. If you like your horror films to be more than just gore-filled hack-fests, then give My Soul To Take a try. This may not be Wes Craven’s best and it is certainly not his worst, but it is more than watchable. You might be surprised to find that the old master of horror still has a few innovative trickeries up his cinematic sleeve!

FRIDAY NIGHT FILK! SPOILER ALERT BY TOM SMITH

Filk is a musical culture, genre, and community tied to science fiction/fantasy fandom and a type of fan labor.  The genre has been active since the early 1950s, and played primarily since the mid-1970s. The term (originally a typographical error) predates 1955.

This description of filker Tom Smith is from his own web site http://www.tomsmithonline.com/index.html.

Tom is NOT your ordinary comedy musician. With the lyrical complexity of Ashman and Sondheim, the vocal fireworks of Meat Loaf, the comedic timing of Robin Williams, and the dynamic physique of the Skipper from Gilligan's Island, the only thing he won't do is be boring.

The only recording artist to be featured on both NPR's Sound and Spirit and The Dr. Demento Show, and writer of the official chantey for Talk Like A Pirate Day, Tom has been praised by such diverse folk as singer-songwriter Christine Lavin, author Larry Niven, and web cartoonist Randy Milholland. He has sixteen albums so far, blending comedy, tragedy, science fiction, fantasy, romance, popular culture, technology, politics, religion, and the occasional recipe with virtually every genre of music you can imagine.

Starting out at sf/fantasy conventions, Tom has been branching out to house concerts and regular gigs the past couple of years. He arranges and records at home, using MIDI, loops, and all manner of software gadgetry... but in performance, it's just him and his guitar, in a high-energy, family-friendly show filled with laughter, shtick, and really, really bad puns.

Tom Smith performs his song "Spoiler Alert" live at Windycon 34 on November 10th 2007.

BATTLE: LOS ANGELES - 2011 - SCIENCE FICTION AT WAR!

I want to start off this review of Battle: Los Angles by stating that I am a genre fan! I watch movies outside of my three favorites genres – read the blog description under the blog title if you don’t know what those are – but I will always watch any theatrical release of my three favorite genres, at the very least, when they become available for rent on blu-ay. I am not a professional film critic, so I have limited time and financial resources that force me to choose the genre films that I see at the theater carefully. For the past decade or so, there seems to be a dearth of true science fiction films and a plethora of fantasy and horror films, so I tend to favor going to a science fiction film over the other two genres.

I went into Battle: Los Angeles knowing only two things about the plot: It was about an alien invasion of Earth and it was from the point of view of a platoon of Marines who are at the frontline of the defense of Los Angeles. The only film by director Jonathan Liebesman that I had seen was the mediocre horror film Darkness Falls (2003), so I didn’t have that as incentive to feel positive about the film. The star Aaron Eckhart I had seen in a few films like The Dark Knight (2007) and Paycheck (2003), but he never really stood out to me as a leading man type. The supporting male cast is made up of mostly unfamiliar names, but the two female co-stars were somewhat familiar to me as a genre fan: Michelle Rodriguez I liked from Resident Evil (2002) and Avatar (2009) and Bridget Moynahan I felt neutral about from I, Robot (2004). I always try to temper my expectations for any film, but the more positive the foreknowledge I have before shelling out my six bucks for the matinee showing at my local theater the more likely I will enjoy a film. Conversely, the more negative information I have before viewing a film makes it more challenging to view a film positively. With the plethora of information that is available now on the Internet before a film is even released, it takes a certain amount of restraint to gather enough background on a film to make a decision on whether to see it or not, but not so much as to take away from the surprises that the film may have in store. When the quantity of information is minimal prior to its release, as was the case with Battle: Los Angeles, it sometimes indicates a lack of confidence in a film from the production company. Still, I tried to keep an open mind.

Battle: Los Angeles starts off with a flash forward to the initial destruction of L. A., as a way of jolting the audience with the anticipated violence. The movie quickly reverts to twenty-four hours prior to that and sets up our cast of characters that we’ll be following for the rest of the film. We’re introduced to Staff Sargent Michael Nantz, who is resigning after 20 years in the Marines because of a tragedy that befell him on his last mission. Before his retirement is finalized, alien machines fall to Earth into the ocean along the coastline of several major cities including Los Angeles and Nantz is assigned to a new platoon of Marines to help hold the line. Nantz must not only deal with an unknown enemy, but a young Lieutenant William Martinez, who has been given this assignment as his first command. Nantz’s platoon is ordered to a local police station, where a group of civilians have been reported to be hiding out from the initial invasion of the alien troops. The aliens have formed a beach head and are deploying groups of armed and armored troops, who are killing both military and civilians alike. The military have decided to form a line of defense just behind the beach head, but for only as long as it takes them to commit an air strike that they hope will cause them to retreat. This only gives Nantz’ platoon twelve hours to find the civilians and get them to safety.

All of the above action takes place in the first twenty minutes of Battle: Los Angeles, so you have some idea of the pacing of the film. There are almost no “time outs” in the course of the action, as most of the film is concerned with the Marines fighting through increasingly more hostile alien forces, all while protecting their civilian charges. I can honestly say that I found the brisk pace consistent with combat situational sequences and didn’t have a problem with the minimalist approach to characterization. The characters for the most part serve as drivers of the plot, which in turn fulfills the film’s ultimate goal: which is to demonstrate humanity’s ability to rise above even the most impossible of circumstances and through perseverance and cooperation accomplish a smaller task that leads to a greater good. Battle: Los Angeles is foremost a war movie and a pro-military one at that. This film is less about the aliens and their advanced technology and more about human beings and their tenacity, inner-strength and a duty to a greater good.

Technically Battle: Los Angeles is amazing! From the opening sequences of the comet-like ships hurtling into the ocean, to the individual alien soldiers with their armored shells and advanced projectile weapons; it all looks sufficiently futuristic, yet still realistic. I liked the way the film slowly revealed the various types of weapons and vehicles and how their revelation became crucial to the plot. The only complaint that I have with the aliens, is the one that I always have and that is why do aliens always seem to be humanoid? In a film with a major motion picture budget, the aliens could have looked like anything, yet they have one head, two arms and two legs. One thing that I did like was that the aliens were not furnished with a “force field”, which allowed the human weapons a chance to at least cause the aliens some damage. This created the more combat type of action that I’m sure the filmmakers were aiming for.

Is Battle: Los Angeles a good science fiction film? Maybe, because they use the aliens more as an symbol for an enormous catastrophe that humanity must overcome: such as depleted energy and resources and the declining world economy. But its main focus is on the human element, despite all the external visual devices and it still comes off as more of a contemporary war story. Let me say that Battle: Los Angeles is a mash-up of the SF and War genres and it does a good job of representing both. Best of all, this film doesn’t have the feel of a “tent-pole” movie in that it actually comes to a satisfying conclusion, while still allowing for the possibility of a sequel. I recommend Battle: Los Angeles to fans of war films first, science fiction films second and I don’t recommend it to anyone who objects to a militant perspective. I personally liked Battle: Los Angeles despite my favoring a more pacifist lifestyle, because it did a decent job of justifying the difficult decisions that are made in the heat of combat, while still demonstrating the atrocities of war. See Battle: Los Angeles and decide for yourself.

INTRODUCING ZOMBZANY THE NECROMANCER - PART EIGHT

In part eight of Introducing Zombzany the Necromancer, Zombzany our host is attempting to explain to his bone-headed side kick why he hates Dracula films and vampires in general. Barely keeping his disdain for the next feature in check, Zombzany gives some background for the Hammer horror Taste the Blood of Dracula. Bill E. Bones’ constant interruptions appear to be getting on Zombzany's dead nerves and it seems like the Overlord of the Undead is having second thoughts about digging Bill out of his grave. Enjoy Introducing Zombzany the Necromancer- Part Eight!

INTRODUCING ZOMBZANY THE NECROMANCER - PART SEVEN

In part seven of Introducing Zombzany the Necromancer it has become obvious that Zombzany is upset over the large number of Dracula films that he has had to host in this horror movie marathon. Zombzany’s love of classic zombie films, particularly White Zombie, is evident as he continues to complain about their absence. Still, the self-proclaimed Dominator of the Dead keeps a stiff upper lip and briefly sets up the next film Dracula Has Risen from the Grave. Once again, Bill E. Bones interjects a little base humor into Zombzany’s monologue and almost surprisingly Zombzany responds with a bit of levity himself. Enjoy Introducing Zombzany the Necromancer- Part Seven.