The End of After Dark, and the new Funny Games
April 18th 2008 18:12
The last 3 of the "8 Films to Die For" have finally passed through the dvd player, and they included what I thought were the best and worst of the series, as well as one that was pretty much par-for-the-series crap.
Tooth and Nail (3/10)
is about what happens after society collapses (this time because we, ahem, ran out of gas...literally). There are some folks who are just trying to get by and some "Rovers" who are plundering, pillaging and eating their way through what's left. If I even gave a general description of the first few minutes, you'd spot the "twist" that takes place later on, and that and just about everything else about Tooth and Nail add up to a been there, done that, move on feeling you'll get watching this one. Even Vinnie Jones and Michael Madsen who can usually be at the very least vaguely interesting are not at all here, both seeming as though they were paid by the hour, or perhaps word (though Madsen is also billed as producer). Although it was boring as hell, Tooth and Nail never felt like a flat-out sh-tty movie.
But Nightmare Man (2/10) sure did.
As the film began, I thought (again), why am I bothering with these movies? Not that I'd stop with two to go, but it's pretty much been crap film after crap film, no? Nightmare Man, within a few minutes, made it clear why I was supposed to slog through this junk heap: to see the worst movie I've seen in a very long time. God, it's awful! There's some lady trying to get pregnant, she gets hold of an African fertility mask, has nightmares about it, then gets chased around a wooded area by the Nightmare Man until they come across a dwelling where some dummies (playing "erotic" truth-or-dare) provide a few bodies to add to the count. The mask itself is so damn cheap-looking it could be a bottom-rung prize in a carnival game, the videocamera work looks ugly as sin and the acting...varies, leaning towards badbadbad. That said, I couldn't take my eyes off it. If you and some friends are looking to laugh your asses off, the Nightmare Man could be your guest of honor.
And, finally, Borderland (7/10)
is probably the only one of the series I'd actually recommend or maybe, possibly end up watching again. It's about three fellows from the US who travel south of the border looking for some easy sex and end up on the wrong side of a murderous cult. The cult is also involved in drugs, which isn't really a focal point of the film, but I'm sure is a much bigger deal in the "true story" on which Borderland is based (though at times it almost seems to be "based" on Hostel). Truthfully, there's not much to Borderland, but it looks much better than any of the other "Eight Films to Die For" and manages to generate some genuine suspense. Toss in a satisfying payoff, some truly creepy villains, and (more than) a bit of the old ultra-violence, and you've got the best of After Dark 2007.
Whew! Thank God that's over!
I also squeezed in the "new" Funny Games (8/10),
which, even though I'd seen the original, almost managed to fill me with as much tension and dread second time 'round. So why did original director Michael Haneke do a (nearly) shot-for-shot remake, and why did I need to see it?
Let's answer the last question first: Naomi Watts is in it.
Really, the original film has remained so clear in my memory that I could've probably done without this one. Remember back when I saw it, having just moved into a new house, all fresh with promise, and, thanks to Funny Games, dread?
Of course you don't! Here's that nearly-two-year-old review. Ahh, memories. Anyway, supposedly this version, (aka Funny Games U.S.) was made because Haneke wanted US audiences to be exposed to his thoughts on violence in the media (which permeate the film), and he figured too many dummies were put off by the thought of reading subtitles. He may be right, but those people probably won't see this one, either. This time, the home-invasion thriller boasts recognizable faces like Ms. Watts, Tim Roth and Michael Pitt (who I thought was as good or better than the original's tormentor), so maybe that will draw more of a crowd, too. But I seriously doubt it. Even though Naomi Watts is in it,
I think folks in the US (and everyone else, for that matter) only need one Funny Games. So, if you haven't seen either, pick one, but I can't imagine you'll need to see both.
Next time...no horror?
Tooth and Nail (3/10)
is about what happens after society collapses (this time because we, ahem, ran out of gas...literally). There are some folks who are just trying to get by and some "Rovers" who are plundering, pillaging and eating their way through what's left. If I even gave a general description of the first few minutes, you'd spot the "twist" that takes place later on, and that and just about everything else about Tooth and Nail add up to a been there, done that, move on feeling you'll get watching this one. Even Vinnie Jones and Michael Madsen who can usually be at the very least vaguely interesting are not at all here, both seeming as though they were paid by the hour, or perhaps word (though Madsen is also billed as producer). Although it was boring as hell, Tooth and Nail never felt like a flat-out sh-tty movie.
As the film began, I thought (again), why am I bothering with these movies? Not that I'd stop with two to go, but it's pretty much been crap film after crap film, no? Nightmare Man, within a few minutes, made it clear why I was supposed to slog through this junk heap: to see the worst movie I've seen in a very long time. God, it's awful! There's some lady trying to get pregnant, she gets hold of an African fertility mask, has nightmares about it, then gets chased around a wooded area by the Nightmare Man until they come across a dwelling where some dummies (playing "erotic" truth-or-dare) provide a few bodies to add to the count. The mask itself is so damn cheap-looking it could be a bottom-rung prize in a carnival game, the videocamera work looks ugly as sin and the acting...varies, leaning towards badbadbad. That said, I couldn't take my eyes off it. If you and some friends are looking to laugh your asses off, the Nightmare Man could be your guest of honor.
is probably the only one of the series I'd actually recommend or maybe, possibly end up watching again. It's about three fellows from the US who travel south of the border looking for some easy sex and end up on the wrong side of a murderous cult. The cult is also involved in drugs, which isn't really a focal point of the film, but I'm sure is a much bigger deal in the "true story" on which Borderland is based (though at times it almost seems to be "based" on Hostel). Truthfully, there's not much to Borderland, but it looks much better than any of the other "Eight Films to Die For" and manages to generate some genuine suspense. Toss in a satisfying payoff, some truly creepy villains, and (more than) a bit of the old ultra-violence, and you've got the best of After Dark 2007.
Whew! Thank God that's over!
I also squeezed in the "new" Funny Games (8/10),
which, even though I'd seen the original, almost managed to fill me with as much tension and dread second time 'round. So why did original director Michael Haneke do a (nearly) shot-for-shot remake, and why did I need to see it?
Let's answer the last question first: Naomi Watts is in it.
Really, the original film has remained so clear in my memory that I could've probably done without this one. Remember back when I saw it, having just moved into a new house, all fresh with promise, and, thanks to Funny Games, dread?
Of course you don't! Here's that nearly-two-year-old review. Ahh, memories. Anyway, supposedly this version, (aka Funny Games U.S.) was made because Haneke wanted US audiences to be exposed to his thoughts on violence in the media (which permeate the film), and he figured too many dummies were put off by the thought of reading subtitles. He may be right, but those people probably won't see this one, either. This time, the home-invasion thriller boasts recognizable faces like Ms. Watts, Tim Roth and Michael Pitt (who I thought was as good or better than the original's tormentor), so maybe that will draw more of a crowd, too. But I seriously doubt it. Even though Naomi Watts is in it,
I think folks in the US (and everyone else, for that matter) only need one Funny Games. So, if you haven't seen either, pick one, but I can't imagine you'll need to see both.
Next time...no horror?
| 92 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
