DON'T LOOK IN THE BASEMENT...

A horror film blog dedicated to uncovering the high art in the lowbrow. All reviews contain spoilers.

[dontlookinthebasement]

[dontlookinthebasement]

We Are Still Here (2015) - 8.1/10

We live in an age of endless remakes, reboots, and sequels.  Over the past decade, unoriginality has morphed from a liability into a movie’s main selling point.  The movie-going public can plead for challenging movies that push us into uncomfortable places, and force us to deal with things we haven’t considered.  But let’s face it.  Those movies tank at the box office, and are lucky to find a cult following years after their original release.  This is especially true of horror films.  We horror fans want bloody, gory comfort food – the same meal repeatedly shoved down our throat.  That godawful Texas Chainsaw reboot from a few years ago? You know, the one that made no fucking sense?  That movie broke records. And yes, I saw it in theaters.  I am just as guilty. Figuratively and literally, we get what we pay for.

On occasion, genre filmmakers try to use this thirst for the familiar to their own aesthetic advantage, bending and repurposing the norm in order to create something that approaches art. Instead of being cynical ploys, their films try to recreate the genre’s glory days, honoring the past instead of butchering it for spare parts.  And yet, there is a fine line between homage and ripoff.  Even the most well-intentioned retelling can be overcome by the influences it intends to celebrate.

You don’t have to be familiar with the works of Lucio Fulci to enjoy We Are Still Here, Ted Geoghegan’s homage to the late Italian goremaster.  It’s an incredibly solid haunted house movie with enough creepy moments and gory payoffs to satisfy a wide swath of horror fans.  But while the film works well as a stand-alone entertainment, its layers are reserved for the aficiandos that know horror films inside and out.   We Are Still Here is the perfect homage to Fulci’s early 80’s masterpieces, while never devolving into a simple beat-by-beat rehash of those films.  It works at its own pace, with a nuanced focus on character and drama – nuance being something that even the best Fulci films lack.  Instead, the film uses Fulci’s films as reinforcement, littering each frame with callbacks and references that align it with the works of the past, but never distract from the film’s central focus.  So while no prior knowledge is required to enjoy We Are Still Here, knowing your eye-gouging, throat-slashing, head-popping history will make watching it all the more enjoyable.

Let’s get the references out of the way first - a little We Are Still Here primer of sorts for those that may want an Italian gore refresher before tackling the film.  The film is heavily, HEAVILY influenced by Fulci’s “Gates of Hell” trilogy, especially the final two installments, The Beyond (1981) and House by the Cemetery (1981).  The film wears these references on its sleeve, filling the plot with names, events, and even bits of dialogue taken from those films. I could go through and point out each instance I stumbled on, but half the fun of We Are Still Here is finding and interpreting these little nods to the past yourself.  When Joe (this time an electrician rather than plumber) shows up and starts poking around the crumbling walls in the basement, it felt like Geoghegan was winking right at me, as if to say, “You see what I’m doing here? You know what’s coming? Well, just you wait…”

And wait I did.  And wait.  And wait.  Geoghegan sets us up, fills us with the expectations of an ensuing bloodbath by hinting at some of the goriest films in history, and then immediately usurps those expectations by doing…nothing.  Shots last too long.  Shadows pass in the background.  Wind blows through the trees. Restraint might seem like a dirty word to a gore lover, but that’s exactly what Geoghegan exercises to a maddening, precise degree during the film’s intial hour.

Then a skull is crushed, a burning hand is pushed through a girl’s chest, and suddenly, shockingly, We Are Still Here becomes everything we were promised, and more. The final 10 minutes of the film is Maestro Fulci’s legacy having the last laugh, and free reign to fuck everyone up. Bodies are blown to bits.  Throats are slit. Faces are ripped apart.  The red stuff spurts and flows freely. Geoghegan even throws in a classic Fulci eye-impaling for good measure.  In the end, he delivers the goods to such an extent that you feel bad for ever doubting him.

After the dust settles, We Are Still Here manages to finish us off with a well-executed dramatic coda. But even if that last bit strikes you as sappy or inauthentic, it doesn’t matter.  We Are Still Here delivers a little something for everyone. The old schoolers and hardcore horror buffs get a well-executed homage to a beloved master.  Non-horror fans get the story and character development that most horror films lack.  And the gorehounds, the ones who are patient enough to wade through the slow burn beginning, are rewarded with a climactic orgy of blood and guts.  

Our beloved horror film history can be a lot of things – a crutch, a car stripped for parts, or even a dead horse beaten ad nauseum.  But it can also be a source for genuine inspiration that challenges the fans predisposed to the tricks of the familiar material.  

Somewhere the Maestro is smiling.

[dontlookinthebasement]

“This house needs a family.”

We Are Still Here (2015)

[dontlookinthebasement]

“Nobody knew what was under this house until it was too late!”

We Are Still Here (2015)

[dontlookinthebasement]

“Oh, it’s still Dagmar’s house.”

We Are Still Here (2015)

[dontlookinthebasement]

[dontlookinthebasement]

Contracted (2013) - 7.9/10

Contracted, Eric England’s cautionary tale of sex and disease, is probably the most inconsistent film in my Top 10, as well as the one I am most likely to defend, despite its flaws. It’s a solid, well-plotted film that looks and feels more cinematic than your average indie horror. And yet, it can never seem to stay on track, veering wildly from horrifying and engaging to stilted and boring, forever losing the steam it tries so hard to build.

This goes double for the film’s lead performance by Najarra Townsend as Samantha. At times, she seems more than capable of taking the film on her shoulders and carrying it, her gut-wrenching physicality vividly conveying her body’s slow decay and transformation. Then she gets lost in her (admittedly not great) dialogue, and the nervous laughs that punctuate each sentence become hard to take as the movie wears on. But in the end, her balls-to-the-walls physical commitment to her role wins out, making her both thrilling and frightening to watch for a good chunk of the movie.

The script is the real problem here - an otherwise great film’s weak link. It has huge plot holes. It peddles weird, “man-hating lesbian” stereotypes. It’s populated with characters that are uniformly unlikable and do stupid things. Luckily, Eric England is a much better director than writer, and working with Najarra Townsend at her best, the two of them create some of the most convincing, stomach-churning female-centric body horror captured on film in years (maybe In My Skin?). With the STD angle, the film perverts and destroys female sexual development, taking symbols of life and reproduction and turning them into symptoms of death and decay. And while it’s not an effects-heavy film, Contracted doesn’t shy away from some fairly gory imagery. As Samantha’s body fails, the transformation makeup that evolves along the way is top-notch, making Townsend nearly unrecognizable by the film’s end with only the most minimal touches.

Now, for this to be any kind of discussion of Contracted, I am going to have to finish this review by arguing for why the film’s seemingly tacked-on, nonsensical twist isn’t so bad, at the end of the day. So, yeah…spoilers…

The film’s artful suggestions of necrophilia (seriously…the off-camera gurney-rocking, the car air fresheners…suggestive but subtle) lead to…zombies? You know what’s going on here, right? “A cheap grab for a slice of the zombie-zeitgeist pie. A last-ditch ploy to get your little indie noticed.” Maybe. But damned if Contracted doesn’t almost earn its ridiculous finale. What’s even more surprising is that, if I were watching for the right things, I should have seen it coming all along.

Zombies are dangerous because a) they consume human flesh, and b) they can turn you into a zombie as well. And while a) is horrifying, and plays on cannibalistic fears, it’s b) that spreads the disease and wipes out civilization. Saliva seeps through bites and blood gets in mouths and eyes, and soon the epidemic spawns a zombie horde. Contracted builds its story around condition b), but plays it up as a sort of “procreation of death”, adding a sexual dimension zombie movies have yet to fully exploit. B.J. seems to target Samantha as part of a premeditated plan to spread his “disease”, especially in light of Zain’s later “I may have sold roofies to a guy named B.J.” remark. Samantha, little by little, becomes overtaken by her own (sexual?) desires. Soon, these desires become all-consuming, and Samantha takes on a zombie’s disregard for human life, willingness to kill, and even taste for human flesh in the process. Awkward, forced sexual encounters are punctuated by bloody mouth-to-mouth vomiting and torn out jugulars. Samantha moves from victim to victim to feed her sexual hunger/desperation. The heterosexual sex that brings everything full circle, now with the roles reversed, serves as the perfect bookend, and makes clear that the movie has been building toward its big zombie reveal all along.

I didn’t realize how much people hate this film. I went back to rewatch it again on Netflix before writing this, and was genuinely taken aback by the film’s 1 ½ star score. But in spite of the haters, I was still horrified and engaged by Contracted the second time around. It lacked some of the bite I thought it had, but was also smarter and more groundbreaking than I had initially given it credit for.

You might still be unconvinced. But while we may disagree on the twist, or even the film as a whole, only the most severe haters won’t crack at least a smile when the film’s most shrill, insufferable character gets her comeuppance in the blackout. In my opinion, it’s a perfect touch - the Icing on the cake of a challenging, flawed film. Because let’s face it…she really had to go.

[dontlookinthebasement]

[dontlookinthebasement]

Curse of Chucky (2013) - 8.2/10

It shouldn’t be so hard to deliver a good horror sequel.  Because the things that make a regular sequel so difficult are no such obstacle for the horror sequel.  A pointless retread?  That’s ok.  Riffing on the existing mythology?  That’s cool too.  Suspension of disbelief?  It’s practically a requirement.  It seems like we horror fans will accept just about anything.  So, why is it so hard to give us what we want?  The horror sequel formula is so simple, how do 90% of the movies made manage to fuck it up?

There are signs, though, to help you avoid the real stinkers.  The unceremonious January/February dump.  The blink-and-you-miss-it theatrical release.  And then there’s the worst sign of all, a category that defines true crap…the direct-to-video sequel.  The bad CGI gore that looks like something your stoner buddy posted on YouTube last week.  The nonsensical script overflowing with lame zingers that sound natural in no human conversation.   The painful overacting randomly thrown around as a break from the standard wooden performances.  The slow death of your favorite horror icons as the last bit of money is wrung out of them as they slip into obscurity. 

  But no rule is absolute.  And the great thing about horror is that it is a genre filled with films that defy expectation.  Curse of Chucky is one of those rule breakers.

  I’m here to tell you this movie is the real deal.  It is the best DTV sequel since Wrong Turn 2.  It blows every other Chucky sequel out of the water.  It gives the original a run for its money.  It’s that good.

  The best thing about Curse of Chucky is that is returns to everything that worked about the original, while ditching the goofy meta-farce that had become groan-worthy in the last few films.  This film is genuinely suspenseful, action-packed, gory, and fun, without becoming a parody of itself.  Instead, it feels like the most natural continuation of the first film yet, with a chilling ending that both honors and expands upon the existing series mythology. 

  Thank God for Don Mancini.  He finally gave us the Chucky movie we always wanted and gave his creation the sequel he has so long deserved.

[dontlookinthebasement]

Alice: Chucky, I’m scared!

Chucky: You fucking should be.

Curse of Chucky (2013)

[dontlookinthebasement]

[dontlookinthebasement]

We Are What We Are (2013) - 7.7/10

I am not what one would call a Jim Mickle devotee.  Mulberry St was great…for an After Dark Horrorfest movie.  But then again, that’s a pretty low hurdle to clear.  I liked Stake Land enough, but grew tired of its penchant for half-baked Malick-isms by the end.  So, when it was announced that Mickle would next be tackling an American remake of the brooding Mexican cannibal horror, We Are What We Are, it seemed like a good fit.  But I wasn’t all that excited.

I should have been, cause Mickle’s We Are What We Are is something close to a gothic poverty masterpiece.  The film unfolds slowly, with the pace of a rolling fog, as a thick greyness hangs over the entire picture.  Horror is hidden in plain sight, just under the surface of unspoken family traditions.  The gory details are only hinted at.  It’s a film that values restraint, even when, at its core, it explores the most exploitative of exploitation film subgenres. 

The authoritarian father figure raging to keep these traditions alive is an added deviation from the original film, and one that adds both clarity and perspective.  In the original, the children fumbled to make sense of these unspoken family rituals.  Here, Bill Sage’s Frank Parker carves out a clear villain, willing to kill to defend his way of life.  The children aren’t struggling with an idea; they are struggling against the will of their father.  He becomes the personification of what is only hinted at and dealt with vaguely in the original.  Sure, it might be seen by some as dumbing down, but I think it makes for a tighter, more well defined film. 

So why isn’t this film in my top 10, instead of outside looking in? 

That fucking ending.  Yeah, it might be the thing that most horror fans latch onto and cheer for.  And yes, it is, in its way, faithful to the carnage that punctuates the end of the original film.  But to me, it felt silly, and totally broke the spell of the previous 90 minutes.  A visually arresting film reduced to some awkward gore for shock value.  And if that is supposed to symbolize their acceptance and carrying on of their family tradition, it felt tacked on and unearned, too poisoned by revenge to be a true embrace of their inner cannibals. 

But I really do like this film.  And while I am still not quite a Jim Mickle groupie, ask me after his next film.  I just might be ready for my place on the bandwagon. 

[dontlookinthebasement]

"We do it the way we have always done it."

We Are What We Are (2013)

[dontlookinthebasement]

[dontlookinthebasement]

American Mary (2013) - 7.5/10

So this is your American Mary backlash review, where I begrudgingly list the film in my Honorable Mentions as an excuse to explain why it isn’t in my top 10 (like it is for everyone else).

American Mary is often regarded as a more transgressive and boundary-pushing film than it actually is, largely I think due to its “Twisted Twins” pedigree. My personal issue with the film is that, in spite of its reputation, it doesn’t go nearly far enough.

I am listing American Mary here because of its potential, and leaving it out of my Top 10 because that potential is largely wasted. The underground body modification scene could have been an endless source of horror and mystery. Instead it works as a backdrop to bad heterosexual tension and melodramatic violence. Any psychological queries or insights are ignored, painted over, or caricatured.

But the truly unforgivable thing is that the film’s horrific potential occurs offscreen. Yeah, I understand there are budgetary considerations, but for a film about body modifications, I demand the intricate manipulation and transformation of the human body to be in full view. I want skin cut and pierced and stretched and sewn. I don’t want slick montage. I want the seams exposed.

There are some films that are unfairly maligned because they fail to deliver on expectations, or conform to personal tastes. This could very well be the case here. I wanted American Mary to be great. Based on what I had heard/read, I expected it to be great. So maybe the fact that it was only pretty good shouldn’t be used as a strike against it.

[dontlookinthebasement]

"I’m changing specialties, Dr. Grant. Have you ever heard of body modification?"

American Mary (2013)

[dontlookinthebasement]