The Blair OHSHIT Project

'The Blair Witch Project' doesn't offer anything new that could be considered original, but it's a personal belief of mine it's not the idea that truly matters, it's how the idea is executed. Although this film has been subject to countless parodies by now, what a lot of people don't quite remember is how chilling the film itself actually is.


I believe what makes this movie truly pop is the fact it plays on one of the most basest of human fears- being lost and afraid. Sure, we as the audience would say "Oh, if I were in that situation, I would (insert whatever brain child strategy here)" but when left in such a desperate and frightening situation with Heather, Mike and Josh, emotions take the reigns and well-laid plans are laid waste pretty darn quickly. In their misguided youthful wisdom, and a massive dose of their own self-overestimation, the three college students assumed they were well-prepared for their little adventure in the woods, but their overconfidence soon gives way to a steady progression of a mental breakdown that is captured in full on camera. It goes without saying that all three actors ran with the vague outline they were given and went above and beyond the call of duty performance wise. An obvious example of this is Heather Donohue's 'confession' sequence, filming herself with the most unflattering angle for any actor and just going full-bore with the waterworks. It's parodied so much, but Donohue truly puts herself out there in that short yet memorable scene and I have nothing but admiration for her.

Joshua Leonard and Michael Williams aren't afraid to dive right into the maelstrom, they aren't token jocks/geeks/dicks or anything most horror films pass as male characters- these could be guys you know. One moment you love them, the next you think they are all total dickheads. When affairs take a turn for the worse, they are down right scared- no macho fronts, no heroic speeches or cheesey lines. These men are frightened, just like Heather. You don't see a lot of men being truly fearful for their lives in cinema and it's refreshing to see these two guys lay bare their emotional states in such a way you are right there with them.

                                               Mental breakdown in T-Minus 15 seconds...


Ahhh, but what of the frights? Well, there is plenty of freaky fare to go around. Obviously nothing about this movie is in your face scare-wise, but that is never to suggest it's not there, because oh, it is. If the initial premise of getting lost in the wilds of nature without a clue how to survive isn't enough, when the trio descend deeper into the woods, all manner of frightening things happen, things that can't be explained. At first it is distant noises outside their tent, then the noises come closer, they assume the form of the human voice and they start to find that their equipment has either gone missing or been strewn across their campsite. And that is just the beginning of it.- the further they flounder, the more disturbing things become. Whatever it is that is menacing these young people isn't playing around- it's hunting them down as if they were weakened gazelles. It means BUSINESS.

                                                                  
At first they dismiss all of this as a prank, some idiots who just want to scare them, but the days grow longer, food becomes sparse and time grows short and it becomes apparent that whatever is out there means them harm. They aren't just lost in the woods- they are lost in time. The most horrifying thing is, instead of banding together to combat whatever it is, the stress of the situation gradually begins to tear the already tenuous ties that bind apart.


It goes without saying the Burkittsville forest in itself is a character. When the three students first start their trek, it is green with lush shrubbery, full of life with birds singing, you can hear creeks bubbling nearby and it is as beautiful as you would expect nature at it's best to be. As things get worse though, you start to notice that the trees are bare of leaves, their branches not unlike cruel, sharp claws. You can't hear any water flowing and the song of birds is mysteriously absent. It must have been something for the three actors to experience these locations, especially because of how influential it was to their performances. Another creative move on the film makers part (the actual directors) was the clever move of using both professional actor plants and regular people in the town where Heather, Josh and Mike go to gain testimony regarding the Blair Witch legend because it adds a nifty little sense of authenticity. Unless you knew who the plants were, you'd think they were all regular folk humoring (and perhaps having a little fun with) these college students.

Ignoring the subsequent slew of imitators, 'The Blair Witch Project' really is a rare beast, dare I say, a contemporary classic of it's genre. Although not all reception has been positive and in it's favor, let's look at it from this perspective- if a movie spawns hundreds of like-minded offspring, it is because it has true credence and such a property is far too profitable to let be. Every single movie craze starts with one memorable cornerstone, and while 'The Blair Witch Project' was not the first of the found-footage genre, it was and always will be a stalwart of it's kind.


BTW: I actually didn't think it's comparatively Hollywood sequel 'Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows' was too bad either, but that's a story for another day.

Have a mind-bend, have a Picnic.

(Wassup, Angel-Faces? Long time no see!)

It says volumes about a piece of visual media that has for this long managed to confuse yet draw in countless generations of audiences, and I'm not talking about 'Lost' (ohhhh, HEADSHOT!).
Based on the story by the same name by authoress Joan Lindsay, Peter Weir's adaptation of 'Picnic At Hanging Rock'  is a vague yet eerily disquietning gem of Australian New Wave cinema. This film isn't about shock value or excess- it's exceedingly subtle, something that many people misinterpret as boring, but I assure you, when you watch the movie, in it's entirety, it is not an exercise in meaningless drivel. It's perhaps one of the most beautiful yet frightening things you may ever watch.

While everybody has a personal fear (mine is idiots with access to nuclear weapons, silly, right?), one of the few fears all of us as human beings share is the all-encompassing phenomenon of uncertainty. Uncertainty of each other, of the world. Not knowing what is to become of you is an eerie concept that all of us has thought about what stage or another. In the case of 'Picnic' the uncertainty comes from what happened to three school girls and their teacher who mysteriously disappeared during a beautiful summer day whilst on a high school outing. The film offers absolutely no conclusion as to what happened to any of them, there is only speculation and discomfort- it is all a disturbing conundrum that only suggests that what became of the missing girls and their teacher- absolute oblivion. For a second, let's just think about that word- 'oblivion'. What exactly does it refer to? Nothing, because oblivion is The Void, the ultimate riddle that nobody can explain or solve, dare I say, a fate that exceeds death and transcends life. I must confess, writing this now dear readers, I am unsure of what to precisely say about this movie without being too vague and for some reason, I feel a little light-headed.

                                                                     Effin' rock!

This movie only asks questions and reveals no answers, a fact that will divide us all, though one thing is for sure, no theory is too wild because of the way Weir translates the story. Upon further viewings, you may be tempted to follow some pretty obvious red herrings, but Weir is too intelligent of a film maker to spoon feed us anything, and you know what? It's brilliant. Weir doesn't underestimate the material he uses and he doesn't underestimate his audience, he treats us all as equals in this case because we are all in the same boat debating as to what happened to the girls and nothing he does choose to share with us is condescending.

Visually, the film looks and sounds sublime, like sleep walking in the hold of a fever dream with performances appropriate to the material to compliment it. None of the actors at the time were well known- in my opinion, it made their characters far more relatable and none the overwhelming. Imagine if they had re-made this movie today and cast some of the world's most bankable young stars. It just wouldn't have the same effect on the piece. Here we are watching people who could have been you or me.

                                                Not that Anne-Louise Lambert was offensive...

Naturally there will be folks out there who will argue and analyse tirelessly about other things we see in the movie- that it is a metaphor for sexual repression and anxiety (this movie does take place in the turn of the century), others may say that it is an allusion of feminism (such as the girls wandering out of the restrictive patriarchy that runs their school), others could be of the mind that it is a message about suicide, meanwhile others will just say "It's just a fucking movie!". The two three notions aren't right nor are they wrong, as for the third, if it's just a fucking movie, why are you reading this fucking blog? This movie was made for an audience with a brain in their heads with every desire to use it. Don't like it, fine, just don't ruin if for those of us who use our grey matter.

Sorry.

To me, this is not just one of the finest films Australia has ever produced, but one of the best mind-benders to grace the screen in history. It is the perfect mystery without a solution and asks no judgement, only opinions.It is not pretentious, and while by all tastes it is not utterly perfect, all it merely asks you what happened and divulges nothing as whether you were right or wrong. So, will you come on this picnic, or will you stay at home with your nice and safe TV dinner?

                                                                              See ya!

A Story About Grief

First and foremost, if you consider yourself a 'true blue' horror fan, turn away now, because the marketing of this movie was hideously misleading. The international trailer promised thrills and chills, but I assure you, this film native to my country is nothing of the sort. This is a ghost story, but first and foremost, it is a story about the heartbreak of grief and the effects it has on us when it goes unresolved.
Shot in the format of a mockumentary/fakementary in the style of a news investigation, visually it's something we have all seen before, but in 'Lake Mungo's case, it is completely appropriate.

A close-knit family in rual Australia have just recently lost a beloved family member, Alice (Talia Zucker) in tragic and unseemly circumstances. They are looking for clues, answers, anything to give them peace of mind about Alice's untimely death. However, things aren't always as they seem, in fact, they are considerably more disturbing than they ever hoped to imagine, as various elements of her personal life come to light as the investigation progresses. Details about Alice's passing are dug up, as are details about her life, details that her family never even conceived of, and thus they come to grips with their own views of mortality.

                                           Imagine if this was somebody you love... or yourself.

In a way, director Joel Anderson owes somewhat to David Lynch's 'Twin Peaks' but rather make this film a mind-bender, it is more of a mind-infiltrator- little by little, 'Lake Mungo' travels under your skin by utilizing it's story and it's actors to maximum effect- grief is a universal sensation, and when it comes to losing somebody you love, be it a family member, friend or even a pet, you feel it. It can be encompassing, oppressive and it can make you feel utterly powerless, and it is these feelings that 'Lake Mungo' strives hard to achieve and for the most part, it is startlingly successful because it hits so close to the heart of all of us. The fact this movie is a ghost story is just part of the context- yes there are apparitions and disturbing moments that we can't explain, but the true horror comes from the reality of loss. There are no 'jump' moments, or heavy-breathing psychos or one-dimensional caricatures of humans, Anderson has chosen to conduct his film with a great sensitivity and the notion that less is more. He presents this film with great maturity and consideration not for money shots, but for the people.

As mentioned before the characters in the film aren't stereotypes- they are people, people who you could have known or may know. They don't spurt clever, hip dialogue, they don't cater to any particular gaze, the actors take their roles very seriously and not once does a performance feel forced or hackneyed. Of particular interest is Rosie Traynor as Alice's mother, June who is for the most part the anchor of the piece, given June has arguably taken Alice's death deeper than anybody else in her family, her story, her role and her point of view is that of ours. As she, her family and the news crew delve deeper into Alice's life, as do we.
Another character is not a human whatsoever, but it is the titular Lake Mungo itself, an actual place here in Australia that was thought to have been the first settlement of our human ancestors. Eerie yet beautiful, it has a distinct aura of deep wisdom as well as uncertainty. Legend has it that water is seen as a symbol of death as well as a means to travel through alternate realms, the Afterlife in particular.

On the downside, while several mysteries are resolved, other are not, namely a crucial incident in Alice's alternate lifestyle that comes as a shock. I won't reveal it for obvious reasons, but as we get closer to the penultimate aspect of Alice's fate, this other point is put on the back-burner that leaves you wondering why it was ever included in the first place if nothing else truly comes of it. It was rather disappointing because it truly gave insight to how troubled young Alice was in her final days. Another element that may be off-putting is that this is a slow-burner- it takes it's sweet time to reveal itself, and even then, not all questions will be answered. Those who like their mysteries to be obvious and their ghost stories thrilling and chilling, this isn't the ideal film for your tastes- 'Lake Mungo' is a mediation on humans dealing with tragedy, not demonic beasties from another realm.

The supernatural may at times be frightening, but in the endgame, what truly gets us the most are ourselves, especially when it comes to the loss of those we love. How do we react? What do we do? Do we do anything at all? And most importantly, how do we deal? Even if we know the truth may hurt us, we can't help but want to find a resolution, to find closure, because we want peace of mind, no matter what the cost may be. It is here that 'Lake Mungo' excels- this story isn't a blood-soaked scream, but whisper in your ear in the darkness of the beyond.

Trivia: The most chilling quote in the entire movie may sound bland without context, but when you see it in the movie, it not only makes sense, it will be sure to make your spine tingle: "I feel like something bad is going to happen to me... it hasn't reached me yet, but it's on it's way."


Trivia II: Unsurprisingly, the uncreative big cheeses in Hollywood want to remake this one. Good luck you lazy prats.

Fuck OFF

Me? Review THIS dreck? This isn't 'so bad it's good' it's just eye-gouging, wrist-slitting, aspyhxiatingly stupendously fucking stupid. All involved in this movie should be rolled in scalding hot tar, covered with feathers, have their mouths sewn shut and be ordered to whistle. Every time you entertain the notion of seeing this, a puppy dies a painful death. Please. Think of the puppies.

Not anemic but not full-blooded either

Technically, Masterpiece Theatre's Dracula (made exclusively to television by BBC in 2006) would have been a miserable failure- it's too short, it glosses over several important factors and it's quite an unusual piece to be released by the normally prestigious production company. However, what ultimately saves it (and us) is that it takes a deliberate step to deviate from the tale with some compelling performances to back it up. In my personal opinion, this may have worked better if this production was a sequel rather than a proclaimed 'faithful' and truncated version of the tale.

Rather than focus on the supernatural elements of the story (which are still there), Dracula turns it into a drama that focuses on the Victorian anxieties of disease, sex, loss and personal shame, and all of these things are compounded by the arrival of Dracula himself. The handsome Arthur Holmwood is about to marry his beloved Lucy Westenra (Sophia Myles), but he is petrified to consumate their marriage due to the fact that he has syphilis. He is desperate to find a way to remedy this and resorts to extreme measures that even he cannot fully understand. Young Mina and newly-appointed solicitor Jonathan Harker have just been married but Jonathan must leave at once for Transylvania to close an important business deal with the elusive Count Dracula, leaving Mina alone and uncertain of what has become of her husband. Doctor John Seward, who has for a long time adored Lucy feels bitter that she chose Arthur to be her husband despite their long term friendship. All of these characters are in an unenviable state that only gets worse upon the arrival of Dracula.

When Bram Stoker wrote his magnum-opus, scandalous and provocative things were known but were never discussed freely. It is this element of fear being like a dark, unknown and forbidden abyss that is personified by Dracula- nobody knows what he is, or where he truly came from. There are theories, and only physical facts but no actual wisdom about him. I don't want to give away an important plot point in the case of this production, but let's just say Van Helsing is not so much an esteemed professor on the matter- he is as much a victim of Dracula as anybody else is. Stoker was very well aware of how his fellow humans felt at the time, and he addressed this by creating a fictional agent to reflect it. 2006 Dracula keenly addresses this, though it never shoves it in your face and rubs it in. The entire production plays out a little like a fever dream- you can certainly feel the sensation of something being wrong, but it is hidden behind a dreamy masque. It would almost be erudite were it not for the fact it never truly reaches the potential.

                                                   Plus the fanfiction kinda writes itself...

Make no mistake, the repressed sexual desire is there, as is an at times, dreamy atmosphere, but these elements don't combine the way they should have. As I said, what saves it from drifting into complete incomprehension are the actors and their approach to their roles.
The ever ravishing Sophia Myles, in my mind, makes for a perfect Lucy- charming and likeable but with a highly palpable sensuality that emanates from her even before she becomes fangy. Her chemistry with Stephanie Leonidas (Mina) is very sweet and convincing. You can see why all of the men adore her (which in turn will make you adore her also). By the way, her intimate scene with Dracula is HOT. Stephanie Leonidas keeps Mina real, but at times, she allows hysteria to become her leading emotion when it feels a little forced. But that's just me. Tom Burke is an interesting young actor with a fascinating face and he embodies Seward's personal bitterness as well as his desire to be the best man of medicine he can be. Dan Stevens is incredibly handsome and he makes for a good choice of this version of Arthur Holmwood. He may not be to everybody's tastes, but he takes on the material the best he can. David Suchet is quite a unique Van Helsing. I'll leave that up to you to see for yourself.

                                                     Sophia Myles: Happy now?

So where does this leave Marc Warren? The guy isn't the embodiment of Dracula as we know him, but this version of the Count has been written to be more of an insinuating menace than an overt one. He is also quietly predacious. Warren's stature is not upfront intimidating, but he doesn't try to be, instead, he uses it to his advantage, especially when it comes to his more intense scenes. The man can just stand there and stare at you with his piercing ice blue eyes and you know a world of hurt and Hell will come upon you. He isn't what you'd call traditionally handsome (thank God for that), but like BBC's other Dracula, Louis Jourdan, he is still very sexy in how he carries himself. His forthright nature, his animalistic attributes, his growly, intimate tone, it works beautifully for him because those are his strengths and he plays to them like a champion. He reminds me of a younger and leaner Malcolm McDowall- that's a compliment. The only thing that worked against him was his 'Old Dracula' make up- Warren, despite his angular features still has a youthful look and you can still see that through all the prosthetics and aged make up he wears when we first see him, and the wig, heh, well.

                                                 
All in all, 2006's Dracula still would have worked as a sequel rather than another re-telling- it has a solid bunch of ideas and an awareness of the time period, a competent cast and a dangerous sexuality lurking beneath it, but it never quite delivers because it never knows quite what it can be. I wanted very much to love this version, but all I could do was like it. I'm not saying that is a bad thing in itself, but when you have all of that great material and you don't use it to maximum effect, why bother showing it at all?

                                       Marc Warren- BECAUSE IT'S MY BLOG, DAMN IT.