Review: Grindhouse (2007)

"But back in the all or nothing days...they had real cars crashing into real cars and real dumb people driving 'em."

Grindhouse is a particularly hard film to review. Partly because, at over 3 hours, it consists of two movies, Planet Terror and Deathproof, and a couple of fake movie trailers. But mostly it’s difficult because Grindhouse is meant to be a throwback to the American “grindhouse” theaters of the 1970’s and the exploitation and B-movies that they showed, many times as double or triple features. And since it is 2012 and Grindhouse came out in 2007, I clearly did not see it in theaters, the way it was meant to be seen. The movies Grindhouse is trying to emulate were known to be terrible: ridiculous plots, little-to-no acting, and special effects that consisted of strings. So it’s hard to gauge what to base a review on. Should it be like any other movie and be defined by how good it is? Or should it be viewed as homage to grindhouse films, with mistakes and everything? Although it walks a very fine line, Grindhouse seems to be both well made and a frame-by-frame tribute.

The first movie, Robert Rodriguez’ Planet Terror, is basically a zombie movie. The acting is a little cheesy, but the plot itself is very tongue-in-cheek so it all kinda works together. What is really interesting is some of the technical choices. To simulate worn film from reels being transported across the US to various grindhouses, Rodriguez scratches the hell out of his film. It’s a unique and cool stylistic choice and definitely something you might never see again what with the (unfortunate) eminent demise of 35mm film in favor of digital. Also back in the heyday of grindhouses, films got shuffled around so much that poor handling resulted in a loss of reels from a movie. To get that accidental effect on purpose, Rodriguez cuts chunks out of the exposition and replaces it with stock footage with the phrase, “missing reel” (Tarantino does this for his film as well). It’s a cute little nod to the grindhouse era and ultimately we don’t lose anything important exposition-wise.

Quentin Tarantino’s section, Death Proof, is much less straightforward. His film is about a maniacal stunt driver who uses his “death-proof” car to kill young women. A couple of years ago I actually saw the standalone version of Death Proof with close to 30 minutes of footage added back to it and I honestly didn’t really like it. For whatever reason, Death Proof works much better with the missing reels and as the second part of a double feature. Still the first half of the film goes on much too long and just isn’t as interesting, funny, or action-packed as the second half. The plot itself is almost more ridiculous than Planet Terror, but Tarantino is a great director and is able to take the absurd and make it entertaining. As I previously mentioned, Tarantino edited the film down to the bare essentials with a handful of missing reels. However, as opposed to Planet Terror’s scratched up film, Death Proof is picture-perfect clean. It’s a bit odd when watched as the full-length double feature but probably unnoticeable on its own.

Each of the films is preceded by a duo of fake movie trailers made by famous directors in the vein of 70’s slasher and exploitation films: Robert Rodriguez gives us Machete (now an actual film), Rob Zombie offers Werewolf Women of the SS, from Edgar Wright Don’t, and finally Eli Roth made Thanksgiving. All four succeed very well, both as a send-up up of 70’s era trailers and as the director’s personal love letter to the genre films that inspired them.

Gun to my head, I'd be more likely to recommend Death Proof of the two. Planet Terror is a lot of fun but it's definitely not quite as well made or as unique as Death Proof. But they truly shine as a double feature.

Taken as a whole, Rodriguez and Tarantino give us two fast-paced action films with plenty of funny moments along with some bonus trailers just for fun. It’s entertaining, interesting, and a hands-on history lesson of 70’s exploitation films, but more than anything, Grindhouse is an experience.

 7/10

Follow @astraeus_

Review: The Cabin In The Woods (2012)

"Ok, I'm drawing a line in the fucking sand. Do NOT read the Latin!"

A couple of reviews ago, I mentioned 21 Jump Street being a smart and refreshing take on the tried and true clichés of both high school and cop movies. It was refreshing because those movies always seem to be the same. Now horror movies are completely different. They go through phases in popularity and have several sub-genres (slasher, psychological, zombie, torture-porn a.k.a. the Saw franchise, etc.) each coming in waves, dying off, and then being resurrected years later.

Remember when The Ring came out in 2002, scared everyone, and made Japan the go-to place for US remakes because Japan was the king of horror? Then a couple years later no one was scared anymore and all of a sudden we had remakes of “classic” horror movies rebooted so kids with cell phones could comprehend how terrifying Michael Meyers was. Remember when Saw and Hostel came out and made people sick with how twisted they were? Remember that resurgence of zombie films like 28 Days Later and the Dawn of the Dead remake leading up to The Walking Dead TV show that no one finds interesting anymore? How about Paranormal Activity and the other “found footage” documentary style horror films?

The point is, horror films seem to follow in waves, flood the market into not finding them scary any more, and then followed by another sub-genre. Repeat ad nauseam. If you can’t tell by this paragraph, I’m not a fan of horror films. I’ve seen plenty and I can safely say horror is my least favorite film genre. Movies like the Scream franchise briefly hold my attention with their lambasting of horror troupes, but overall they still fall into the same rhythm of that which they are making fun of. Why bring all of this up? Just so you believe me when I say that The Cabin in the Woods is easily the best horror film ever made and more importantly a phenomenal film in its own right.

The Cabin in the Woods follows five college students as they head out to the aforementioned cabin in the aforementioned woods for a weekend that takes a dark turn. What sounds like a routine horror movie quickly turns into something more, but revealing anything more robs the viewer of the rich experience this film creates. From the masterminds of Drew Goddard (2008’s Cloverfield, several episodes of LOST, Buffy, Alias, and Angel) and Joss Whedon (Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Dollhouse, 2005’s Serenity, 2008’s Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog, and the upcoming blockbuster The Avengers), The Cabin in the Woods reinvents the genre as a whole. Yes, like Scream, Cabin takes on the basic conventions of horror movies and derides them. But Cabin offers more. As the world-building continues throughout the film, we’re given this grand, sci-fi backstory that’s positively enthralling. Most importantly though is once you take a step back and look at the bigger picture Cabin paints, you realize that its backstory is able to make other horror movies relevant. How many other films can honestly say that they make other, unrelated movies more interesting and purposeful? I can’t say too much more without spoiling anything, but suffice to say, Cabin is a game changer.

The acting is top notch from everyone. Audience favorite, Fran Kranz is absolutely hilarious along with the mysterious duo Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford. Whedon and Goddard wrote a fantastic script with wit and charm and the shot composition and editing are great as well with nothing feeling superfluous or distracting. David Julyan’s (composer for Memento and The Prestige) soundtrack is John Carpenter-esque but with a modern feel.

The one weakness I discovered was on my second viewing of the film. Everything was better, except for the actual horror scenes. Things that made me jump the first time, didn’t elicit much of a reaction at all the second time. It could be that very few movies genuinely scare me or maybe the movie is too smart for it’s own good. But no matter, either way The Cabin in the Woods is a must see, and unlike anything you’ve witnessed before. And I’ll go ahead and say this: The Cabin in the Woods is the best film of the year so far.

9/10

Follow @astraeus_

Review: Clerks (1994)

"I ASSURE YOU; WE'RE OPEN."

In 1994, Kevin Smith made his directional debut with this film, chronicling a day in the life of a convenience store clerk. It’s shot in black and white, is incredibly low budget, and ultimately, a very good film. Clerks is a once in a lifetime type of movie.

Successful directors usually only have such a raw output once before they are given a bigger budget (Christopher Nolan’s first film Following is a prime example). Other times we only see it in hard to find shorts or student films. Kevin Smith’s technique is flawed yet speaks volumes to his potential as a director. Smith reportedly shot Clerks with a measly $27,575. For those not in the know, $27k is a tiny budget. It’s shocking you can even make a film that cheap (although Robert Rodriguez’ first film, El Mariachi, was made with only $7,000!). What’s more shocking, is Clerks went on to gross over $3 million at the box office. I think anyone who’s even thought of making a movie before should be in awe of that astronomical difference.

But there’s a reason it grossed that much. At its heart, Clerks is a film that deconstructs the day-to-day grind of working in a dead-end job and questions why we do it. Probably one of the biggest details Smith gets right is the dialog. Conversations play out like they would between real people. Petty debates and arguments are routine among friends in reality. Smith captures that spirit in Dante and Randal’s conversations (played by Brian O’Halloran and Jeff Anderson respectively), whether it’s about annoying customers or the innocent victims in Star Wars. Aside from Quentin Tarantino’s movies, few films capture the spirit of actual conversation. There is a good reason for that: real life conversations are boring. Luckily this movie is about boredom so pointless dialog is actually appropriate for once.

Clerks is not without it’s flaws though. From the poor lighting on the external shots to the random cut away shots to feet during conversations, it’s obvious that this was a first time director on a budget. And those mistakes can be forgiven in the context of the film. Less forgivable, however, is the acting. I don’t think there is a single performance that can be considered good. Passable, yes, but good? Sorry. Thankfully, the film rarely flirts with bad performances. Occasionally, lines seem simply read but never enough to derail the film. Dante’s continuous quote, “I’m not even supposed to be here today,” borders on the melodramatic at times and are really the only moments that the film noticeably breaks the illusion of disbelief. One could argue that as Clerks is meant to mirror reality and the uneventful life that the acting is good because that is how real people actually talk and act, but I’m not buying it.

Still, despite its flaws, Clerks is a worthwhile film. Anyone who has ever worked in retail or any monotonous job will find similarities to their life and it’s nice to see a film tackle the idea of a dead-end life without throwing some cliché, Hollywood life lesson that nicely wraps everything up. And anyone interested in early, low budget works by big named directors will be thoroughly enjoyed.

6/10



Follow @astraeus_