The Autopsy of Jane Doe

Happy New Year!

We are starting the new year with a newer horror movie:

The Autopsy of Jane Doe (2016).

This movie title has been lurking at the corners of my awareness for quite a while, but when I saw a video about less popular horror movies that are well worth watching, and that video compared The Autopsy of Jane Doe with Oculus (2013) I had to watch it.

Oculus and The Autopsy of Jane Doe do not follow the same story but they both play with perception. This is not an easy thing to do in a movie, as it can easily devolve into massive plot holes and deus-ex-machina moments. I can happily say that both movies pass with flying colors.

This is the plot: Police respond to a multiple homicide in a private residence and in the basement they find the half buried body of a naked young woman. The sheriff rushes her to a morgue/crematorium run by the father and son team of Tommy (Brian Cox) and Austin (Emile Hirsch), because "I can explain the other death's, I can't explain her". As soon as they start work on the young woman, the titular Jane Doe, weird stuff start happening and soon devolve into a nightmare for all involved. The more they literally dig into her, the weirder things get.

The Autopsy of Jane Doe is a small movie. Almost the entire film takes place in the underground morgue, but director André Øvredal (Trollhunter) uses the limited space very effectively. The effects are stellar and very gory. In fact, if you are even slightly sensitive, do not eat while watching this movie!

The actors are excellent and despite having mostly only two characters to work with, it never becomes an issue. The star in many ways though, is Olwen Catherine Kelly who plays the titular Jane Doe. She spends the entire movie lying absolutely motionless on the cold table, a role that might seem easy but is horrible to actually do. Only when it became unavoidable did they use prosthetics, so for every other scene, she lies there completely still.

It is also worth pointing out that despite all the gruesome horror, the most unsettling thing in the movie is the corpses sightless eyes staring at you.

The movie does offer up an explanation for why and how all the horror happens, but considering the central theme of twisted reality, I'm not sold that this explanation is true. It could be, but nothing says that it is.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, to all horror fans, absolutely! Non horror fans will not have a good time, but for us that like this stuff, The Autopsy of Jane Doe is an incredible film. A good example of how simple things can be when they are done right!

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great start of 2024.

 

It is that time again...

The year is growing old and 2023 is ending. Most of us have lots to do and no matter how much time we think we have, it's never enough. 

All this can add up to a lot of stress, so I figured I'd give you something relaxing and fun to watch.

 

Very British Problems, Christmas edition is a collage of sorts starring some top names in British comedy sharing their Christmas traditions and tribulations. So, enjoy and I'll see you guys on the first day of 2024!

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Happy New Year and all that!

 

 

Southbound

Today we're talking about:

Southbound (2015).

Southbound is a horror anthology movie in five parts. I am forced to spoil it a little, but most spoilers are easily spotted and somewhat obvious.

Part 1 – The Way Out.

Two men, Mitch and Jack, are driving down the desert road, harrowed and bloody. Mitch sees these weird skeletal angels that have no lower bodies hovering in the desert. They stop at gas station to get cleaned up, but things take a startling turn which leads into:

Part 2 – Siren.

An all girl jazz band, The White Tights, are staying the night in the motel next to the above mentioned gas station. They are on the way to a gig, but their van breaks down. The girls are young, wild and honestly kind of stupid. “Why is it so hot?” one asks... in the desert. A creepy couple offers to put them up and help with the van, so they go with them. The couple dress and live as if it was the 60's and very soon things get pretty damn creepy. One girl, Sadie, runs away into:

Part 3 – The Accident.

Lucas is driving on the same road late at night while on the phone with his wife and accidentally hits Sadie. She's badly hurt and they are in the middle of nowhere. Lucas calls 911 but doesn't know where they are, so they can't send an ambulance. He is instructed to bring Sadie along to the nearest town. A town that happens to be abandoned. All the lights are on, but no one is there. He finds an equally abandoned clinic and fights to save her life. Ultimately he leaves and we run right into:

Part 4 – Jailbreak.

A scruffy old man, Danny, bursts into the local bar with a shotgun searching for his sister Jesse. The bartender takes him to where she is and he drags her with him despite her protests. Blood is shed as they get stuck in the desert, where she tells him they aren't allowed to be. Truths are told and Jesse drives back to town where she sees a pretty blonde girl, Jem, and we go to:

Part 5 – The Way In.

A married couple and their daughter Jem are celebrating that Jem is going to college. They go to their holiday home when they find masked and armed men outside. They call the police but soon the men break in and all hell breaks loose.

All in all, Southbound is a really cool little horror movie. It has an indie feel and dares to try some new things which delights an old horror hound like me. The actors are all good and the music is top notch. Southbound managed to surprise me once or twice even though a lot of obvious things and tropes happen as well. Accident is my favorite segment and it's genuinely one of the most stressful things I've seen on film. The movie is pretty gory at times, but that is to be expected in horror I suppose. There is a real sense of purgatory in this desert setting, and it seems like everything happens in one night. What I also appreciate is that the movie doesn't explain things. No exposition, no nothing. Just a strange and bloody ride that's Southbound.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, without a doubt. If you're not a horror fan, avoid it, but I assume you would anyway. I was really impressed with this movie about redemption and getting what you deserve.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

Nighthawks

This week, I watched:

Nighthawks (1981).

Not to be confused with Nighthawks (1978) which is a movie about a gay man living a double life, or the famous painting by Edward Hopper, this action thriller stars Sylvester Stallone, Billy Dee Williams and Rutger Hauer.

We meet Deke DaSilva (Stallone) and Matthew Fox (Williams), two highly effective NYPD sergeants who work on the decoy squad. In other words, they pretend to be vulnerable targets to tempt muggers and then drop the hammer on said muggers. They're tough badasses who always get the job done.

Then we have Wulfgar (Hauer), a freelance terrorist whose brutal savagery has him on the outs with the major terror groups. He goes to New York to prove himself so that the terrorists will beg for his services. DaSilva and Fox are assigned to the new ATAC squad and given anti-terrorist training so inevitably the two sides are going to clash violently.

Nighthawks is an interesting movie. It balances the action with the thriller elements quite well, with neither dominating the film. It's not too long and doesn't overstay its welcome. The actors are all good, the scenery and the cinematography are excellent, so I don't have anything to complain about at all, but there is something missing, and I don't know what that is.

Stallone was still riding high on Rocky when he made Nighthawks, and according to himself he was an insufferable know it all. He did make one cut of the movie and the studio likewise did one as well, so some stuff was lost on the cutting room floor. I really can't say what it is that I'm missing, but whatever it is, it's what's holding this movie from being great.

The contrast between Stallone and Hauer is great. Stallone's dark intense gaze is perfectly matched by Hauer's ice blue eyes. DaSilva is driven but has his limits, while Wulfgar has no limits but is equally motivated. Williams is a great partner to Stallone, staying with him beat for beat without being overshadowed.

This is the first (but far from last) movie where Stallone plays a cop and he did all his own stunts, including climbing down from a hovering helicopter and being winched up to a cable car. All this despite being horribly afraid of heights.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes I do. Nighthawks is good, no doubt about it. Good but not great. Solid but missing an edge, something that makes you want to watch it again and again. That said, I do urge you to watch it. For being a Stallone action movie, Nighthawks is almost subdued, but in a good way. It's nothing like the action movie's he'd go on to make. It has a very realistic feel, with the grimy, dark New York streets and the high quality acting.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

I decided to knock a classic off the list, so I watched;

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966).

This movie, based on a play by the same name, stars Elizabeth Taylor as Martha who is married to George, played by Richard Burton. They receive two guests, Nick and Honey, played by George Segal and Sandy Dennis. There's also a roadhouse waitress and a manager played by Agnes and Frank Flanagan, and that is the entire cast. That's it, six people and two are barely in the movie.

I've been trying to figure out how to explain this movie without spoiling it. Essentially, the older couple George and Martha are both alcoholics, and they receive Nick and Honey as guests. What follows is two hours of drinking, screaming, crying and the most vicious, sadistic emotional attacks I've ever seen in a movie. It is at times horrific to watch, but you kind of can't look away. If it wasn't for the amazing acting talent on display, this would have been a real flop, but it is in fact brilliant.

George Segal and Sandy Dennis both do a really good job, but they are up against Taylor and Burton at the height of their craft, and it's no shame to be overshadowed by such talent.

This is the first movie by director Mike Nichols, who had previously worked in theater, and according to many of the crew, he worked incredibly hard and it shows. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? isn't a cinematographic masterpiece, but it is incredibly solid as a movie. It is also shot in black and white, but unlike say Psycho (1960) which was shot in black and white for economic reasons, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is shot this way for technical reasons. Both Taylor and Burton wore heavy makeup to age them, and this makeup didn't look good in color. Nichols also decided that Burton looked more brooding and sinister in monochrome, and he wasn't wrong.

The story is simple in its complexity. There are layers within layers and you are never really sure what is real and what is a cruel lie designed to cause or hide pain. Just when you think you have it figured out, the movie runs off in another direction, leaving you to follow along as best you can. If any element had failed, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? would have gone down like a lead balloon, but all the pieces matter and fit perfectly.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, I really do. Unless the subject matter is too heavy for you, you should take the time to watch it. It is a hard watch, but it is also at times strangely beautiful, and seeing great actors pull out all the stops and really go for it is a treat.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time, and until then, have a great week!

 

A dose of reality.

This week I haven't watched any movies, but I have a couple of documentaries to share with you.

The first one is The Seven Five, a documentary about some of the goings on at the 75th Precinct in New York back in the late 80's. This movie details exactly how the proverbial Slippery Slope works. How a little skimming turns into a massive crime spree with murders, drugs and massive corruption. 

The Seven Five was a fascinating documentary,and well worth the time to watch. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adZaHShRa3A&list=WL&index=16

 

Our second entry is The Shock Doctrine, a documentary based on a book by Naomi Klein, demonstrating how the economic principles of Milton Friedman has led to the dictatorships in Chile and Argentina, how the eponymous Shock Doctrine is used to stun the population and make the really rich ultra rich. I'm not educated enough to be able to critique it  100%, but everything it talks about did happen. I guess you need to make up your own mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL3XGZ5rreE

That's that and all that. Join me again next time, and until then, have a great week!

Ouch, what a burn

Today we're doing things differently, we're talking about:

The Burning (1981)

But with SPOILERS!

The reason for the spoilers is simple, without them, all I can say about The Burning is “campers are stalked by a madman” which wouldn't be very satisfying. Besides, if you've ever watched a horror movie, especially a slasher, then you can predict 90%+ of The Burning.

The movie opens at Camp Blackfoot, where a group of older kids are planning their revenge against the cruel and sadistic camp caretaker, Cropsy. This goes wrong and Cropsy is severely, almost fatally burned. He is released from hospital five years later, kills a prostitute for some reason, and goes to Camp Stonewater to stalk and kill the kids there, even though they had nothing to do with his burns. We meet all the campers and their counselors, and see Cropsy lurking in the background. A big event, the overnight canoe trip is coming up and soon enough the kids are off and so is Cropsy and his trusty pruning shears. Cropsy kills some kids and we get to the finale.

If you get some Friday the 13^th vibes, it is apparently a coincidence. The Cropsy legend is a genuine campfire story told in real life. It was turned into a script before Friday the 13^th was shot, according to effects maestro Tom Savini who does the effects for The Burning. Miramax clearly wanted to turn Cropsy into a franchise, but the movie didn't sell well enough outside Japan, where it became a huge hit.

The Burning is a very mixed bag for me. The actors are overall very good and stars some famous names in their first movie roles like, Jason Alexander, Fisher Stevens and Holly Hunter. The effects are good, they are Savini effects after all, even though he was extremely rushed, and the cinematography is simple but decent.

The script is sadly weak and the dialogue is pretty awful. If you're feeling generous you can see it as “that's how teens talked back then” and maybe they did, but there are no good lines in The Burning.

Seeing as this movie was released in 1981, and it is one of the original slashers, we can forgive the fairly lackluster setup of “disfigured madman massacres teens” as it wasn't overused back then. What I'm having a hard time with is Cropsy's apparently supernatural ability to travel large distances instantly and to hide in plain sight. It is one of those things you're not supposed to think too much about, but they explain and show so much of Cropsy's backstory that you know exactly what he is, there is no mystery like in Halloween and Friday the 13^th. He is just a disfigured man with murder in his heart, yet he possesses borderline supernatural abilities.

So, do I recommend this movie? Depends really. Dedicated horror fans shouldn't miss The Burning as it is basically a classic, but others can probably find something better to watch. The Burning isn't a bad movie, but it really isn't that good either. It beats out many of the sequels in the more famous franchises but can't compete with their originals.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!