Braindead/Dead Alive (1992)

PETER JACKSON

BRAINDEAD/DEAD ALIVE

NEW ZEALAND, 1992

8/10

"Stand back, boy! This calls for divine intervention! I kick ass for the Lord!"

Last night, for the first time, I watched BRAINDEAD (1992), it's been on my watch list for over a year, and I decided to finally view it and then review it for this blog.

Smart, funny, and downright disgusting, Peter Jackson's BRAINDEAD is a masterpiece in the horror-comedy genre (you read that right, the LORD OF THE RINGS director made one of the goriest zombie films of all time). Now, I'm not usually a fan of slapstick comedy, and as much as I love EVIL DEAD (1981) and its sequels, I never found them funny (I know that the original EVIL DEAD was just a plain horror, but the others were slapstick comedies), and so I had pretty low expectations for this film. However, I actually found this film very funny (still not hilarious, which it why it's not a 10/10 or even a 9/10, but I did chuckle at some points). People who watch this film no doubt remember many lines, such as the aforementioned "I kick ass for the Lord!", or "Your mother ate my dog!" "Not all of it", or even "We don't sell sedatives! Tranquilizers, I do have." It is the combination of not only slapstick humor but also generally witty and amusing dialogue that places this movie as my favorite slapstick comedy. 

The film also has one of the best taglines ever: "Some things won't stay down...even after they're dead." It truly lets you know you are in for a gory ride. There are some wonderful events in the film, from a rat monkey to humping zombies to a zombie baby to a priest using the martial arts to a Jack-o-Lantern type of lit up zombie. What more could you ask for in a slapstick film?

The film takes a while to get in to the huge amounts of blood and gore that it is famous for. It introduces its characters, Lionel and Paquita, develops their relationship, and while the zombies begin very quickly, this film isn't a bloodbath until the last 35 minutes. The plot is very minimal and has been used time and time again, but this film isn't supposed to have a killer plot. It sets out to make you laugh and do exceed your wildest expectations with, literally, gallons and gallons and gallons of blood (five gallons per second in the lawnmower scene). I was told the amount of blood in this would exceed my expectations, so I expected blood on the level of EVIL DEAD, but I ended up getting way more than that.

So if you're looking for a fun popcorn movie to watch with your friends that aren't squeamish, this is it. You'll laugh, smile, be a little disgusted, but ultimately come back for more. Highly recommended. 

The Exorcist III (1990)

WILLIAM PETER BLATTY

THE EXORCIST III

USA, 1990

7.5/10

"Incidentally, did you know that you are talking to an artist? I sometimes do special things to my victims: things that are creative. Of course, it takes knowledge, pride in your work... For example, a decapitated head can continue to see for approximately twenty seconds. So when I have one that's gawking, I always hold it up so that it can see its body. It's a little extra I throw in for no added charge. I must admit it makes me chuckle every time. Life is fun. It's a wonderful life, in fact... for some."

In 1973 we got THE EXORCIST (1973), one of the most commercially successful and famous horror movies of all time. 4 years later, we got THE EXORCIST II: THE HERETIC (1977), an unbelievably horrible movie (I watched it once years ago and I can't bring myself to watch it again, even though I probably will eventually because it'll be fun to write a review for). Then, 13 years later, we finally get THE EXORCIST III (1990), an actual worthy sequel. 

Now, this film actually could have been a lot better than it actually is. A big reason I'm rating it 7.5 out of 10 is because I'm taking into account the kind of film Blatty wanted to write. He wanted it to be a more faithful adaptation of his book, LEGION, and even wanted the film to be called LEGION, but the studio made his make the story more exorcism-focused, and to put THE EXORCIST name on it to make it easier to market. I mean, the movie would have been loads better if that exorcism wasn't thrown in at the end, and it felt a lot more like an afterthought than a resolution to the story. 

Seeing as I am a huge SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (1991) fan, I loved the interactions between Kinderman and the Gemini Killer, as their conversations were slightly similar to those of Clarice Starling and Hannibal Lecter. Blatty writes these scenes exceptionally, which is to be expected seeing as his novels have received much acclaim, and much of THE EXORCIST III's power relies on the words and symbolism. Blatty's direction is also amazing, especially considering that this was only the second film he's ever directed. Although I believe that THE EXORCIST has slightly better cinematography, this film is still amazing. This is one of the only films I can think of where it's directed, written, and adapted from a novel by the same person. 

THE EXORCIST III is completely underrated. I've never met anyone who's even heard of the film, but even on the Internet I see very little appreciation for the film. Considering the fact that it's a third installment in a horror film series, this film is exceptional (I mean, compare this to any other third installment in any other horror series, it's most likely superior). THE EXORCIST III is an incredibly intelligent horror film, but can still be enjoyed without focusing on the more intelligent aspects. If you're looking for a film with great acting, you can find that here. If you're looking for a film with some beautiful shots, you can find that here. If you're looking for a film with a fantastic plot (except for the dumbed-down crowd pleasing scenes the studio forced Blatty to include), you can find that here. If you're looking for a film with enough symbolism and foreshadowing to keep you engaged in the film to watch it again, you can find that here. If you're looking for, arguably, the most effective jump scare in the entire horror genre, you can most definitely find that here (please refrain from watching said scene before-hand, it works much better in context). 

In conclusion, THE EXORCIST III is an unbelievably underrated horror flick, that, while I still believe the original to be vastly superior, is a wonderfully journey into darkness. It would no doubt be much better if the studio let Blatty have more creative control over the film, but it is still worth a view or two. Highly recommended.

Scream (1996)

WES CRAVEN

SCREAM

USA, 1996

7.5/10

"Several more local teens are dead, bringing to an end the harrowing mystery of the masked killings that has terrified this peaceful community like the plot of some scary movie. It all began with the scream of a 911, and ended in a bloodbath that has rocked the town of Woodsboro. All played out here in this peaceful farmhouse, far from the crimes and the sirens of the larger cities that its residents have fled."

In a time where Michael was boring, Freddy had lost his edge, and Jason hadn't had a good film in years, the horror genre was close to dead. And yet in that time, we get SCREAM (1996), a funny, new, and, most importantly, scary movie. For once, a horror film in which the characters had seen all the same movies we had.

The film opens at the house of character Casey, played by the famous Drew Barrymore, who is getting ready to sit down and watch HALLOWEEN (1978), when she receives a mysterious call. The rest of the film is littered with comedic moments and horror references that any slasher fan should have a fun time identifying (keep an eye out for the name of Sidney's boyfriend, the number on Tatum's shirt, etc).

And of course there is the famous line "There are certain RULES that one must abide by in order to successfully survive a horror movie." The film mentions rules which we have all learned by watching earlier slashers. There's the glaringly obvious "don't have sex", don't yell out "who's there?", don't drink, and more. And what SCREAM does is try to break every rule (though it is still rather unpredictable).

Now, of course, I hate what SCREAM did to the genre. It revived the horror genre, and specifically the slasher sub-genre, but almost all of the films inspired by SCREAM were just annoying and cheesy films that were trying too hard to be self-aware. Looking at you, I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER (1997); it's hard to believe that I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER was written by the same writer of SCREAM. And, while the second SCREAM movie is still pretty good, the other two films in the franchise are horrible imitations, just as formulaic as the films SCREAM tried to defy.

When I first got in to horror, I watched almost every sub-genre of horror films, and had seen quite a lot of movies at young age (by the time I was 13 I had already seen THE SHINING (1980), THE EXORCIST (1973), THE OMEN (1976), THE FLY (1986) and many, many more), but one sub-genre that I wasn't very experienced in was the slasher. Sure, I had seen HALLOWEEN and the first four FRIDAY THE 13TH films by the time of watching this, but that's as deep as my understanding of the sub-genre went. So I enjoy SCREAM because it helped past-me and many other horror novices discover the slasher genre (this film led me to the NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET franchise, PROM NIGHT, THE BURNING, and many others that I never had any interest in watching before). And that is what I truly love about SCREAM: its ability to please horror experts and to educate those who aren't as understanding of the genre.

When some horror fans want to talk about shitty modern movies, their go-to film to poke fun at is often SCREAM. I find this completely ridiculous, because SCREAM is actually a very good film. I'd understand completely if they made fun of SCREAM 3 (2000) or SCREAM 4 (2011), or hell, I could even understand SCREAM 2, but the original SCREAM is actually a very original, witty, tongue-in-cheek film that still somehow manages to scare on top of all of that.

(Minor spoilers about the killer(s), no identity/identities are shared) While some argue that the killer(s)'s reason of recreating horror films (although another reason is that he/she/they are just batshit crazy) is very unlikely, I honestly believe it was the only ending the film could have done. I mean, if it turned out to be some crazy act of revenge, or another standard slasher ending, I think we'd all feel a little cheated. And this is hardly the most ridiculous ending in the franchise (as much as I enjoy SCREAM 2, the ending is pretty ridiculous, and 3 and 4 are both some of the most ridiculous endings I've ever seen, though I'll save that for my future reviews of those films). 

All in all, SCREAM is a very fun, scary, and interesting horror film that actually brought something new to a genre that had been reduced to formulaic slashers for years (if only we could have another truly original film nowadays). There are some brilliant one-liners ("You're starting to sound like some Wes Carpenter flick"), great characters (I'm not Dewey's biggest fan, but besides him I enjoy all of the characters), and a mystery-slasher that actually keeps you constantly guessing until the very end (the first time I watched this film, I never would have guessed the killer(s) in a million years). Highly recommended.