Skip to content

The MFF Podcast #73: Fede Alvarez’s Don’t Breathe and Evil Dead

September 29, 2016

MFF

You can download the pod on Itunes or LISTEN TO THE POD ON BLOG TALK RADIO.

If you get a chance please make sure to review, rate and share. You are awesome!

evil-dead

.

Summary: This week we discuss Fede Alvarez’ second horror film Don’t Breathe (2016), Stephen Lang and Jane Levy’s physical dedication as actors, and Fede Alvarez’ first film the Evil Dead (2013) remake.

dont-breathe-poster evil_dead_2013_by_myrmorko-d5j4g87

We answer the tough questions in this podcast!  For example…

“Did Bloodsport (1988) have the best soundtrack of 80s action movies?”

“If Stranger Things took place in the 1990s what movies would be used for inspiration?”

“Does the Evil Dead (2013) remake have any heart?”

“Are there really very many movies featuring monsters barbecuing people?”

Stephen Lang stars in Screen Gems' horror-thriller DON'T BREATHE.

LISTEN TO THE POD ON BLOG TALK RADIO,
or head over iTunes, and if you get a chance please SUBSCRIBE, REVIEW, RATE and SHARE the pod!

don-t-breathe-poster02

The MFF Halloween Horror Calendar: 31 Streaming Films for 31 Days

September 27, 2016

The MFF Halloween Calendar will make it easy for you to watch a whole lot of horror films from the comfort of your home. I was going to put together 31 films that everyone should watch in October, but I figured it would be time consuming and costly for you to watch all of them. So, I searched the streaming services Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu and HBO GO to put together a list of horror films you can stream. These movies represent every facet of the horror world and if you watch them all you will see the best (I Saw the Devil, Rosemary’s Baby) and best worst (The Wicker Man, Deep Blue Sea) from around the world.

I didn’t want to burn people out with too much intense horror so I included some creature features and horror comedies to add some laughs and fun to the depravity and murder. Hopefully this list of random films opens up your horror world and introduces you to some unique films. I’ve included some alternates in the calendar just in case you don’t have all of the steaming services.

Enjoy!

Look below the calendar to find links to the movies we’ve reviewed or covered on our podcast.

2016-october-calendar-of-horror-mff%2509%2509%2509%2509%2509%2509%2509%2509%2509%2509%2509%2509-jan-2

*If you see Showtime next to a Hulu film, it requires the Showtime add-on. It’s worth it!

  1. The Witch – Amazon Prime
  2. Pontypool – Netflix
  3. From Dusk Till Dawn – Netflix
  4. The Invitation  – Netflix
  5. Bone Tomahawk – Amazon Prime
  6. Housebound – Netflix
  7. Under the Skin – Amazon Prime
  8. Rosemary’s Baby – Amazon Prime
  9. Tucker and Dale vs. Evil – Amazon Prime/Netflix
  10. The House of the Devil – Hulu
  11. The Voices – Amazon Prime
  12. Trollhunter – Netflix
  13. Hush – Netflix
  14. An American Werewolf in London – Amazon Prime
  15. It Follows – Hulu
  16. Poltergeist – HBO Now
  17. 28 Days Later HBO Now
  18. Spring – Amazon Prime
  19. Honeymoon – Netflix

Alternates

  1. Backcountry
  2. We Are Still Here
  3. Creep
  4. Innkeepers
  5. Tusk
  6. Blue Ruin
  7. Scream 2

More Horror reading

  1. The Top 21 Horror Films of the 21st Century!
  2. What Are Your Favorite Horror Films That Don’t Appear on “Best of” Lists?
  3. The 10 Best Moments of 21st Century Horror.
  4. What is the Best Horror Movie of the 21st Century? An In-Depth Look into Critical and Audience Scores.
  5. 10 Films That Can United the Art-House Hardcore Horror Fans.
  6. Examining the State of 2015 Horror Cinema.
  7. Everything You Need to Know About Horror Franchises.
  8. Breaking Down the Plots of Jaws 5-19. 

Make sure to check out our podcast page. We cover most of the movies on the list!

If you have a subscription to Shudder and want to add some movies to the calendar I recommend Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon, A Tale of Two Sisters, Assault on Precinct 13, Day of the Dead and Kill List.

 

 

 

Blair Witch: When World-Building Goes Wrong

September 26, 2016

blair-witch-poster

.

Blair Witch is an absolute mess that builds upon its predecessor’s mythology and loses everything that made the original such a classic. I like that director Adam Wingard (The Guest, You’re Next) and writer Simon Barrett tried something new, but it feels like they threw everything at a time portal wall and it and came back incomprehensible. I understand the plot elements and have read the theories, but none of them feel organic or interesting. I was bored by the panicked wooded jogging and when the witch hit the fan I couldn’t help but think about every other found footage film, which is slightly ironic because the original Blair Witch helped the genre explode.

My biggest issues with Blair Witch is that it avoids the slow burn and moves quickly into horror thriller mode. I love the how original beautifully transitioned into madness and left you a nervous wreck due to prolonged tension. There is zero time to build anything (character, plot, coherence) in the sequel because things quickly go wrong then everything gets turned to 11. Thus, the action doesn’t matter because we don’t care about the hastily created characters. They are simply fodder to be killed by loud noises, falling tress and witch trickery. I don’t want to go into deep spoiler territory, but there are elements of time travel, mythology and more time travel. The story is being expanded but it works against the plot because there is no focus or clarity to the narrative. I like when we are left with questions, but I dislike when the questions are the product of narrative shortcomings.

movie-sequels-hitting-theaters-in-2016-blair-witch

Help! I’m stuck in a subpar horror film!

I had a hard time believing that the six people would go into the woods. I guess Heather’s brother would be curious as to what happened to her 17 years ago, but his plan seems foolhardy considering the police and search parties couldn’t find the cabin he is searching for. You know all their high-tech gear will fail at the worst possible moment and they will find themselves walking in the woods and complaining about their feet. The characters don’t make a single impression and if it weren’t for IMDb I wouldn’t know their names, which sucks because Wingard’s other films introduced us to some badass characters.

Sharni

Sharni Vinson crushed it in You’re Next.

Blair Witch expands the universe but it gives zero personality to the characters. I only recommend watching it if you are looking for a horror film featuring lots of falling tress and wonky logic.

 

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Embrace the Remake

September 20, 2016

Cinematic remakes are a fact of life and I’ve learned to embrace the good, the bad and the ugly of the remake world (The Good, the Bad & the Weird is great by the way). When it comes to these movies I’m surprised that everyone is surprised about how many there are. The art of recreating an old property is not new and will continue long after we are done complaining about the latest Ben-Hur remake.

Instead of rallying against something I can’t stop, I decided to learn as much as I could about 21st century remakes so I can be that guy at the party who cares enough to make an argument for The Fright Night remake. I also needed an excuse to share this Wicker Man clip again.

.

There were 175 remakes that received wide theatrical releases (2,000 screens) in the 21st century. So, there isn’t any confusion I’m sticking with strictly remakes. For example, Ocean’s 11 (2001) is a remake of Ocean’s 11 (1960). Lately, it has been getting incredibly murky when defining the word “remake” because there are reboots (The Amazing Spider-Man), television adaptations (Starsky & Hutch) and rebootquels (Thanks Birth. Movies. Death.) flooding our movie theaters and streaming services. I am going to write solely about the remakes because if I tried to blend them all together into one post I would end up like Austin Powers.

austin-powers-gif

.

The average critic (Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic)/audience (IMDb) score for the movies and their sequels is a lowly 49.1%. Only 41 of the remakes have a “fresh” 60% or above critic/audience rating which means only 23% are viewed favorably. Also, it is really hard to spin-off sequels from remakes. 11 of the 175 films had sequels and only the Ocean’s and The Texas Chainsaw films were lucky enough to have a third (Ocean’s 13, Texas Chainsaw 3D). The only remake sequel to best its predecessor was Journey 2: The Mysterious Island. The sequel had the luxury of featuring The Rock but even then the return on investment was close from 324% to 303% (#bringbackBrendanFraser).

Take a look at this graph that shows how remade franchises fare against comic book franchises. For some reason, sequels to remakes almost never do better than their predecessors.

image-39

Let’s say you run a studio that only remakes films and you want to know how the 21st century has treated you. Here is the inflated box office breakdown of the 175 theatrically released films.

  1. $151,000,000 average international box office – $60,000,000 average budget = $91,000,000 profit before including marketing expenses.
  2. The average marketing budget in 2007 was $39,000,000. So, even if you subtracted $50 million from each film you’d still have a profit of $41,000,000 and a positive ROI of 1.64% before DVD and merchandising sales.
  3. In the end, the studio would pull in around $7,175,000,000 from all their remakes. In a day and age where misfire blockbusters lose studios a lot of money it is pretty obvious why a studio would invest in a remake.
  • The reason I valued the marketing budget at $50,000,000 is to play it safe. I recently read that marketing budgets are around half a film’s budget. The average cost for each remake was $60,000,000 which should’ve resulted in a $30,000,000 marketing budget. However, with the rise of Disney and big budget marketing costs I felt $50 million was safe(ish).

Remakes may be less lucrative than 21st century reboots (Star Trek, James Bond, The Amazing Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, Pan etc..) which average $414 million worldwide. However, remakes have a higher ROI (163.12>157.46) and their average budgets are much lower ($60,000,000 < $148,000,000) which means marketing expenses are not as high.

When I started looking at the theatrical return on investment (ROI) I found out some interesting things. Horror remakes and PG-rated films have the highest ROI because the budgets (sans Disney films) are lower, horror fans will watch anything and parents need to take their kids to movies. Here are the top 10.

  1. The Grudge (2004) – 1,773%
  2. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) – 1,027%
  3. The Karate Kid (2010) – 797%
  4. Freaky Friday (2003) – 704%
  5. My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009) – 571%
  6. True Grit (2010) – 563% – The lone exception.
  7. Silent House (2012) – 555%
  8. Shutter (2008) – 498%
  9. Evil Dead (2013) – 473%
  10. Cinderella – (2015) – 471% 
  • True Grit is the lone exception. The $40 million budgeted film is the statistical best of the 21st century. The Karate Kid and Freaky Friday results are impressive considering they weren’t reactive, critically lauded or big budgeted.

The remakes that have been box office disappointments haven’t followed trends or were released at the tail end of the particular craze. There was no momentum behind them and were pretty much unnecessary (sans Solaris). I really don’t see a world where Willard, Around the World in 80 Days, Rollerball, The Invasion, Poseidon, Ben-Hur, Arthur, Conan, Alfie, The Truth About Charlie and Straw Dogs were wise investments. The films just couldn’t make the jump forward in time and no matter the A-list crew or big name directors they underwhelmed and lost money.

The large number of 21st century remakes weren’t made because people loved remakes. A lot of the movies were produced because there were some trendsetters that kick-started a craze.

  1. The Ring (2002) – Gore Verbinski’s film was incredibly popular ($333 million worldwide) and was voted one of the 21st century’s best horror films. However, its success ushered in a whole lot of bad. Starting with the massively popular and incredibly timed The Grudge that made $238 million (with inflation) on a $12.7 million budget. These two films were blockbusters and were responsible for seven years worth of terrible but lucrative Asian horror remakes. Here are the films: The Ring 2, Dark Water, Pulse, The Grudge 2, The Uninvited, One Missed Call, Shutter, Mirrors, and The Eye.
  2. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) – It may be a boring retread of a classic but it was very influential. The $12.4 million budgeted remake collected $139 million at the worldwide box office and ushered in a whole lot of big money makers that were mostly bad. I believe the success directly/indirectly inspired studios to remake every horror property they could get their hands on: The Exorcist, Dawn of the Dead, The Fog, The Amityville Horror, House of Wax, Black Christmas, When a Strange Calls, The Wicker Man, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, The Omen, The Hills Have Eyes, The Hills Have Eyes 2, The Hitcher, The Invasion, Halloween, Prom Night, The Stepfather, Sorority Row, Halloween 2, Friday the 13th, The Last House on the Left, My Bloody Valentine, A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Crazies, Evil Dead, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3D, Carrie
  3. Alice in Wonderland (2010) Alice in Wonderland made over a billion dollars worldwide and ushered in a plethora of expertly made and widely successful Disney remakes. Here they are: Maleficent, Cinderella, Alice Through the Looking Glass, The Jungle Book and Pete’s Dragon (watch it!!!!). With Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, Cruella and Dumbo on the way.

Sidenote: There are other influences (The Sixth Sense, 28 Days Later, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) but I feel these three films put studios into plaid remake overdrive.

spaceballs-plaid-gif

.

I love that three films were directly/indirectly responsible for 43 of the 175 (24%) 21st century theatrically released remakes. The numbers peaked in 2005 with 20 and dropped to five in 2015.

image-38

The Asian and classic horror remakes have run their course and now Disney is the biggest game in town. Disney has transformed its remake game since the 1990s and they’ve moved to a very intelligent system. They don’t remake random films (Ben-Hur, Poseidon) or have to worry about changing something from R to PG-13 (Robocop, Total Recall) to make more international money. They are digging deep in their back catalog and making bank (Around the World in 80 Days excluded). I appreciate that they hire big name directors and A-list stars and they seemingly care about making good films that make them really good money. I guarantee that Beauty & the Beast will clear a billion worldwide and Ewan McGregor’s French accent will confuse everyone.

.

Remakes don’t always have to follow trends or be pushed into existence. In the 21st century amazing directors like Martin Scorsese (The Departed), David Fincher (The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo), Spike Lee (Oldboy), Tony Scott (Man on Fire), Cameron Crowe (Vanilla Sky), Jonathan Demme (The Truth About Charlie), John McTiernan (Rollerball), Tim Burton (Planet of the Apes, Charlie & the Chocolate Factory), Jon Favreau (The Jungle Book), Steven Spielberg (War of the Worlds), Steven Soderbergh (Ocean’s Eleven, Solaris), Christopher Nolan (Insomnia), Peter Jackson (King Kong) and the Coen brothers (True Grit, Ladykillers) have tackled remakes and the results are spectacular when done right (The Departed, True Grit) or awesomely bad when botched (Rollerball, Oldboy). There is something neat about watching a great director remake a film they love. I’m sure there are directors who want the payday but the 10 best critic/audience rated remakes have been exceptionally made.

  1. The Departed (2006) – 87.3
  2. True Grit (2010) – 84.3
  3. The Jungle Book (2016) – 83
  4. Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007) – 81
  5. 3:10 to Yuma (2007) – 81
  6. Insomnia (2002) – 80.6
  7. Let Me In (2010) – 79.6
  8. Hairspray (2007) – 79.6
  9. King Kong (2005) – 79
  10. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) – 78.3
  • Only one of these films (The Jungle Book) falls under the reactive remake system I talked about above. Disney is crushing it.

I love when a remake succeeds because it feels sneaky. The creators have found a way to tell the same story twice and get people to spend their hard-earned money on something they’ve already watched. It almost seems like an uphill battle because many of the copied films are beloved and there is zero chance they can match the originals endearing qualities. The creators need to tell the same story, with the same beats, but make it different enough to not be Gus Van Sant’s ridiculous Psycho remake. I really felt for the Ghostbusters remake/reboot/whateverboot because director Paul Feig had to appease irrational die-hard fans and forge a new path. Ghostbusters could never become its own thing because it also had to be the old thing. Thus, we were left with a movie that really wanted to have fun but was handcuffed to cameos, familiar ghouls and locations. If you are interested check out this great episode of the Empire podcast that features Feig breaking down the production.

It is ridiculous but understandable that foreign films need an English remake. I normally begrudge these creations but I respect when they are done right (The Ring, The Departed, Let Me In) and not cynical cash grabs.  I am even more impressed when remakes like Evil Dead and Dawn of the Dead overcome their cult predecessors and are actually pretty good. Adam Sandler’s films Just Go with It, Mr. Deeds and The Longest Yard crushed the box office ($231 million average) and succeeded despite having terrible reviews and zero superheroes. I’d wager the majority of the people who went to the films didn’t even know they were remakes and simply wanted to relax and embrace Adam Sandler’s lucrative and familiar antics. Some may call it lazy but I call it sneaky (listen to our Sandler podcast).

.

I understand the complaints against remakes but they won’t change anything. The movie industry follows trends and if something is successful they will make a lot of it. I think the reason why remakes are getting so much buzz now is because Ghostbusters, Ben Hur, Alice Through the Looking Glass and The Huntsman: Winter’s War underperformed and made less than their predecessors. Some of these films were total cash grabs or plagued by online hate that sparked a whole lot of press. There are always several big budget movies that tank every year, but after the massive box office of 2015 people are freaking out about the oddness of the 2016 summer season.

Remakes aren’t going anywhere so you might as well understand them. I’d like to say that they are Hollywood being unoriginal. However, that means for all of cinemas existence filmmakers and studios have been lazy. On the whole it is harder to make a good remake than it is a bad one So, I’ve embraced the random few like The Thing, The Fly, The Departed, True Grit and Invasion of the Body Snatchers that rise above the rest and become classics in their own right.

 

 

 

 

 

John’s Horror Corner: Blair Witch (2016), discussing a divisive franchise whose third installment offered little new except LOUD NOISES and a videogame monster.

September 19, 2016

qr4kstr
Some SPOILERS

MY CALL:  I had fun watching this movie. Once it gets going it’s actually quite exciting if you don’t get overly aggravated by its repetitions from 1999’s playbook.  But I also enjoyed it much less after I left the theater and had time to reflect on it.  Sigh.  Take from that what you will.  Felt like a great jumpy popcorn flick to me, but not something for anyone hoping for a satisfying film following up The Blair Witch Project (1999).

the-blair-witch-project-4

Almost 20 years ago, The Blair Witch Project (1999) took theaters by storm in an era before internet hype; before social media minefields of spoiler-rich click bait revealed everything before the opening day of the movie; and, most importantly, before anyone had ever considered found footage to be a subgenre (let alone a subgenre of which they tired).  It was about three film students who vanished after venturing the Maryland woods to film a documentary on the local Blair Witch legend, leaving only their harrowing and turbulent footage behind.  The film powerfully impacted the horror industry and its fans, so naturally followed an under-appreciated sequel.

large_ip2iqmvcqfzvpe8rahpt1my6xm9

The 1999 indie film was more than a bit divisive.  Causing shaky camera-induced motion sickness in a sea of viewers, this otherwise impressive film ignited the tidal wave of found footage hatred in its wake about which so many peevish horror fans moan today.

blairwitch_532223

The more mainstream (and not found footage) studio sequel Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 (2000) followed a subsequent group of investigators to Burkittsville, Maryland after seeing The Blair Witch Project (1999), herein treated as a “real movie” within the movie.  In this metamovie, our protagonists explored the local mythology only to get caught between mass hysteria or, perhaps, the magical influence of the Blair Witch.  Whereas I enjoyed and highly recommend this sequel, the majority of horror-goers don’t seem to share my opinion.  An obvious consequence of this backlash being that this new 2016 sequel directly follows The Blair Witch Project (1999) while apparently ignoring the events of Book of Shadows (2000).  However, one could thinly argue that both sequel stories transpired and that their constituent investigators simply never crossed paths in person or in research.

image1

l-book-of-shadows-blair-witch-2-a23e56bc

Now with this third film upon us the Blair Witch has become a franchise—a brand.  So it came as no surprise that such a stylistic indie filmmaker was chosen for this third Blair Witch film which, for fear of being stoned to death, I dare not call the completion of a “trilogy.”  Director Adam Wingard (The Guest, V/H/S 2 – Phase I Clinical Trials, The ABCs of Death – Q is for Quack, V/H/S – Tape 56, You’re Next) is no stranger to found footage, nor to taking the road less traveled to pursue less mainstream-style horror stories.  He has even taken it upon himself to helm the risky American remakes of Death Note (2006) and I Saw the Devil (2010).  And where we find Wingard, we find writer Simon Barrett, who wrote all of the Wingard projects mentioned above, including the upcoming Americanized remakes.  They make a good team…I have high hopes for this film.  Or should I say, I had high hopes.

movie-sequels-hitting-theaters-in-2016-blair-witch

Having just left the theater I can comfortably say it was consistent nerve-racking fun…but also rather annoyingly just more of the same, turned up to an “11” and super loud.  If you can enjoy a film simply for its rollercoaster jumpiness and ignore its content altogether, then you could end up loving this completely unoriginal film.  It’s a thrillride and it’s great at being a thrillride, as if we were injected into a fast-play horror videogame towards the end.  But outside of that, this brings nothing new to the table except for a “witch” that looks like a tall lanky monster from a Doom or Resident Evil first person shooter game—and with similar effects.

The original (and Book of Shadows) focused on the characters and their superstition turning them on each other and likewise turning to terror.  Putative supernatural occurrences were suggested but not evidenced back in 1999.  This 2016 film, however, was more akin to sprinting through the woods and an abandoned dilapidated house screaming “WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITCH IN THE WOODS” with a super shaky camera that captures occasional glimpses of terrors.  Much as The Thing (2011), Star Wars Episode VII (2015), Jurassic World (2015), Cabin Fever (2016) and Ghostbusters (2016), we have yet another film that paints by the numbers of an overly familiar model pattern.  And that model pattern was a successful one the we loved… but did anyone really want to see the investigators get lost, apparently hike a giant circle, and end up back at the campsite again?  Did we need more sprinting while holding a flashlight-lit camera at high speeds in the woods?  Did the creek need to disappear… again?  Did we need to see another person standing in a dark cellar facing the wall?  Probably not.  But, again, despite being a mediocre film (in my opinion), it manages to be a quite entertaining movie experience (for me).

xfgwvpvwpj5owvahhzij

As it turns out, this redundant link is perhaps also the deepest aspect of the film–addressing the aspect of time distortion in the forest.  Lots of theories out there, so we won’t discuss it here other than to say that many think this is the “same event” showing the “same character” in both movies.  Think about it…if time passes differently in those woods, this is maybe possible depending on your rationale.

That’s not to say everything was replayed from what makes me now shutter to call “part 1.” There were new character elements (for otherwise underdeveloped characters), they forced more probable supernatural elements upon us sooner (rather than relying on mystery or possible hysteria for much of the running time), there was a shocking voodoo doll scene (with a back break akin to Paranormal Activity 3 (2011)), a completely disjointed implication of a parasite of some sort (with greater implications that I feel failed), some more clues to the component of time distortion (addressed in the other two films as well), and they made a bigger overblown deal out of the house (which was straight out of a videogame).  But, like I said before, it still smelled of the original, and strongly so.

In the end I had fun watching this movie. It’s actually VERY exciting and entertaining if you don’t get caught up in aggravation—LOL.  But I also enjoyed it much less after I left the theater and had time to reflect on it.  Sigh.

57c07216c7480e6b4733f1fd_853x480_u_v4

Regardless of one’s enjoyment, I’d struggle to identify anything new that actually contributed to the 1999 story…other than that we got to “see” the Blair Witch and she looks like a starved, gangly-limbed videogame monster that was probably transported back to Earth after the reappearance of the Event Horizon (1997), the wrong turn to Silent Hill, or the incident at Raccoon City.

**********************************************

After seeing this I imagine you’ll want to see more witch movies.  Maybe because you loved this above-discussed 2016 film or because you want a witch movie do-over to make up for that hot mess.  So, now that the Blair Witch discussion has come to an end, here is a little witch movie guidance…

MORE WITCH MOVIES:  Some excellent witch movies that actually feel like witch movies include Warlock (1989), The Witch (2016; podcast discussion) and The Witches of Eastwick (1987).  Beautiful Creatures (2013) and The Woods (2006) may appeal to young adult audiences.  But I would sooner direct you to Hocus Pocus (1993), The Witches (1990) and The Craft (1996).  I’m leaving Harry Potter out of this discussion, by the way. Fantasy sorcery (Willow, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice) and wizardry (The Lord of the Rings) is to be considered its own thing entirely.

The campy The Kiss (1988), Spellbinder (1988), Necropolis (1987) and Cherry Tree (2015) are entertaining but bad.  And speaking of campy, Superstition (1982) and The Haunting of Morella (1990) are allegedly witch movies but don’t feel like it. But even if you want a bad movie, definitely skip Witchcraft (1989) and all sequels.

The dark noir Lord of Illusions (1995) is intriguingly edgy and, while more a “magic movie” than a “witch movie,” it hits a lot of the same dark arcane notes.  And, of course, The Blair Witch Project (1999) and Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 (2000) were awesomely stylized in their own unique ways despite never actually showing us a witch.  Check out Pumpkinhead (1988) for a great depiction of a witch, though it’s not a “witch movie.” Meanwhile Deadtime Stories (1986) and The Theater Bizarre (2011) features a pretty cool witch short story, and The Pit and the Pendulum (1991) addresses witch trials.

Witches can come in so many flavors, can’t they?  Lords of Salem (2013) and Mother of Tears (2007) deal with witches’ spirits in the form of dark ritual and possession.  Quite the opposite, Snow White and the Huntsman (2012), The Last Witch Hunter (2015; podcast discussion) and Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013) offer action and effects-driven popcorn fun—Season of the Witch (2011) attempted this, but failed miserably.  But the witch from The Brothers Grimm (2005) was pretty cool.

**********************************************

screenshot-www-youtube-com-2016-07-26-11-10-08-538x385

Well that concludes today’s witch movie discussion. That is, of course, until they release The Blair Sasquatch!  I totally think the story would make more sense if it was just some bigfoot making crude stick men and eating campers that nosily wander too far from the safety of their trails.  That thing we saw for half a second at a time in the Blair Witch (2016) finale could have easily been an albino sasquatch, rendered almost completely ravenous, hairless and gaunt from the extreme malnutrition of having no campers to eat for 17 years (since 1999)!  I’m just glad that poor crypto-critter finally got to eat something.

blair1

qr4kstr

The MFF Podcast #72: The 1996 Super Cinematic Bonanza of Awesomeness

September 16, 2016

MFF

Hello all. Mark here.

You can download the pod on Itunes or LISTEN TO THE POD ON BLOG TALK RADIO.

If you get a chance please make sure to review, rate and share. You are awesome!

The MFF podcast is back and we are revisiting 1996! In this pod we discuss crappy horror films, draft teams comprised of 1996 movies (vote below) and hand out random awards.  No 1996 film is safe as we chat about classics like Carnosaur 2, Tremors 2: Aftershocks and The English Patient. If you are a fan of the movies that were released 20 years ago I guarantee you will love every second of this very special episode.

Independence Day Jeff Goldblum Will Smith Walking

The best walking of 1996.

As always we answer random questions and discuss Bill Murray’s hair in Kingpin. It is a rollicking 90-minutes that will bring back many good (and bad) memories of a very influential year of cinema.

Check out the MFF pod on Blog Talk Radio or head over to Itunes and listen to the randomness!

If you get a chance please SUBSCRIBE, REVIEW, RATE and SHARE the pod!

Here are our 1996 cinematic teams:

Lasavath: Fargo, The Rock, The Cable Guy, Space Jam, Escape From L.A.

Leavengood: Birdcage, Happy Gilmore, Phenomenon, Jerry Maquire, The Craft

Mark: Swingers, Scream, Trainspotting, Bottle Rocket, Kingpin

Sully: The Miracle of Tom Hanks

September 15, 2016

sully-movie-poster

I want to hug Tom Hanks. His performance in Sully is perfection and I think it is so good that people won’t know how good it is. It is a subtle performance that commands respect and immediately makes you believes that Tom Hanks can do anything. What I love about Clint Eastwood directed films is how he allows his actors to shine. Between Million Dollar Baby, Flags of Our Fathers, Letters From Iwo Jima, American Sniper, Mystic River and Unforgiven we’ve been given some amazing performances and I think Eastwood’s acting first style creates some brilliant performances.

I loved every second of Sully and I appreciate how Clint Eastwood was able to take to the story of an absolute miracle and find humanity, tension and heart. I am still amazed that pilot Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger was able to land his plane on the Hudson river after double engine failure. No plane had ever experienced engine failure at just 2,818 feet in the air and 99% of the time the engine failure would’ve resulted in certain death. However, Sully and co-pilot Jeffrey Skiles calmly landed the massive plane on the Hudson river. All 155 passengers survived and the crew became overnight celebrities.

Eastwood’s film covers every angle of the water landing and focuses on the lives of the two pilots days after the miracle. Sully (Tom Hanks) and Jeffries (Aaron Eckhart) are thrust into the national limelight and become media darlings who are forced to relive the ordeal over and over for the press. Things go slightly awry when investigators releases the news that flight simulators successfully returned the damaged plane back to New York airports. What follows is an examination of doubt, friendship and great mustaches.

sully-mustaches

.

Sully is an elegant look at a conflicted man pondering if he did the right thing. Time vindicated Sully but I can only imagine the stress he went through as he ran every scenario in his hand. Tom Hanks is perfect in the role and I love how effortless he makes everything work. I bet it was really tough for Hanks because Clint Eastwood’s sparse style and need of only a couple takes must’ve forced him to bring his A++ game. The most pleasant surprise of Sully is Aaron Eckhart’s charming performance. I’ve always liked Eckhart and thought he was great in Thank You for Smoking. Now that I’ve seen him in Sully I’m annoyed that he spends his time making I, Frankenstein and London Has Fallen. He is so good in Sully that it is frustrating because you want to see him get better roles.

Go watch Sully. It is a beautiful film that puts characters first and features some of the best performances you will see all year.

%d bloggers like this: