AJCFP – Cluster #3: Fate, Fangs, and Pharmaceuticals

Adam: Fear not! I will still be finishing Adam’s January Clusterfilm Project, even though it’s no longer January! (I know, you weren’t fearing anything.)

The reason I fell so far behind is actually this cluster. I was nervous about rewatching Let The Right One In since it had such a life-changing effect on me the first time I watched it. That may sound silly to some of you, but it actually delayed me over a week because I needed to have the “perfect night” to watch it. I did get that perfect night, but it pushed me back with this project quite a bit. So I will be finishing the project, it just might take me a chunk of February to get it done.

This cluster deals with dark subjects like the apocalypse, predestination, vampires, terrible sex scenes, murder, and growing up. Enjoy.

-

AJCFP – Cluster #3: Fate, Fangs, and Pharmaceuticals

Donnie Darko (dir. Richard Kelly, 2001)

We begin this cluster with a film I’d been looking forward to rewatching since I saw it for the first and only time back in 2008. When I saw Donnie Darko for the first time, my reaction was mixed. Part of me really liked the odd humor, the cast, the dark images, and the fact that a kid with mental health issues kept hallucinating a guy in a rabbit suit and hearing about time travel and wormholes. And yet, part of me hated the scenes that actually didn’t make any sense no matter how you looked at it, some of the blatant anti-authority or “young outsider” stuff that felt really forced and gimmicky, and of course…the fanbase. Vast majorities of the people who love this film mock those who don’t like it because they “don’t get it” and the fans do. (Hint: there’s not much to actually get.)

Well, upon rewatching, I can say that I understood it more this time, but for the life of me I cannot understand why so many people love this thing. My reaction was almost completely split the entire time between “oh, I love that!” and “ugh, this is the worst,” which is a reaction that I absolutely love because it’s so rare for me to feel both extremes during the same film. So no matter how it seems, this actually isn’t a negative review. Or is it?

For instance, I love the soundtrack and the cinematography. Both of them are fantastic. I also love the cast. To be honest, if this was a film of entirely unknown actors, I really don’t think anyone would care about it at all. On the flip side, I hate how hard it tries to be deeper than it actually is. Sure, it discusses time travel and wormholes and tangential realities, but at the end of the day it’s basically a “here’s what would happen if this kid cheated death” story, and then ends in an overglorified montage of everyone waking up from a dream. It’s every decent writer’s ultimate sin: “it was all a dream.” (That wasn’t even a spoiler, to show you just how unimportant the ending is in the big picture.)

I guess my opinion of Donnie Darko can be summed up with a lyric from the famous-for-no-reason montage at the end, to the song “Mad World.”

“I find it kind of funny, I find it kind of sad.”

Let The Right One In (dir. Tomas Alfredson, 2008)

This film has been in my top ten favorite films of all time since the first (and only) time I watched it a couple years ago. Let The Right One In is a Swedish coming-of-age story about a bullied boy named Oskar who, when practicing his retaliation for the boys who torture him at school, meets a young girl named Eli. But Eli is not a girl, nor is she young; Eli is a vampire. The two become friends, and throughout the film, they teach each other about love, friendship, standing up for yourself, and all sorts of vital lessons we begin to learn early in our lives (Oskar is only twelve). But before you think this is some sort of happy, flowery, saccharine story, let me bring up some of the dark stuff. Eli has a “helper,” a man who goes out, captures people, and drains their blood so Eli can drink it. Eli doesn’t do it herself because it causes too much of a mess and a ruckus (not to mention, she’s only “twelve” years old…), so this man does it instead. The film tackles a gallery of dark and important subjects, such as loneliness, bullying, alcoholism, pedophilia (barely…it’s covered more in the novel, I hear), parent-child relationships, imperfections and follies of adults, death, love, and so much more. It’s filmed beautifully, and exquisitely acted, especially by the two lead child actors. This film also captures Winter better than any film I have ever seen (Let The Right One In, Fargo, and Frozen are the three best, I think). Honestly, in my mind there is no flaw in this film. It is still comfortably in my top ten films of all time, and will probably stay there for many, many years.

If you can’t handle a film in Swedish with English subtitles (there is an English dub, but…why would you watch that?), then, I don’t know, go read a book and stop being one of those “I don’t like reading movies” people. But if you can handle the Swedish, the darkness, the blood, and the raw truth of growing up, you simply must watch this film. I insist.

Let Me In (dir. Matt Reeves, 2010)

Why yes, this does have a strikingly similar title to Let The Right One In, doesn’t it? That’s because it’s the British-American remake, released only two years after the flawless original. But before you think this is going to be a review trashing a redo of one of my favorite films, think again. This remake (though I prefer to simply call it “the American version”) is actually near perfect in a lot of ways. In numerical terms, if the Swedish film is a 10, the American version is a 9. It’s that good. But it’s hard to get into the movie if you’ve just watched the Swedish one, so I’d recommend watching the Swedish one first, waiting a few months, and then watching the American one.

Comparing the two films is actually a fascinating critique of American filmmaking and culture in comparison to foreign filmmaking. For instance, the Swedish film, released in 2008, feels like a timeless coming-of-age fairy tale. The American film, however, is shot like a modern day American horror film, and will age as such. If I didn’t know the Swedish film was made in 2008, I would have guessed any time from the 80’s (when it takes place) to yesterday. The American one, however, screams 2010. The violence and gore are more intense, the camera angles are more “suspenseful,” and the whole thing is saturated with American social norms/taboos. Something that’s in this film that isn’t in the Swedish one is an almost definite homage to Rear Window, where Owen (oh yeah, it’s Owen and Abby in this one, instead of Oskar and Eli) looks through a telescope at two of his neighbors. In one apartment is a couple that is very sexually active, and in the other dwells a man who works out frequently. This is a very interesting statement on what young boys are shown to need to be when they get older: sexually active and physically strong or fit. (The same is true for women, of course, and much more harshly and complexly so, but the movie is focusing on a young boy, so that’s why I say boy here.) Apart from that, there is a sexual undertone to the whole film that was missing from the Swedish one. Speaking of which, the bullying that happens in this version is more disturbing, and the biggest difference is the bully calling him “little girl” instead of “little pig.” This says a lot about America seeing women as weaker or lesser than men, and that being called a woman or girl is an insult. At first, this enraged me, but then I realized…that’s the point. It was an intentional change that shows American sexism embedded in our very culture when we don’t even realize it. Ouch.

The biggest difference, in my opinion, is the abundance of religious paranoia present in this film. The Swedish one made no mention of religion, yet the American version seems to be obsessed with “good vs. evil” and whether or not Abby is evil, which was intentional from the director, and is a beautiful metaphor for uptight, religious, conservative adults often being paranoid that their children are falling into evil as they grow up, when in reality they are just growing up and have questions and are facing the world that said adults are so afraid of. It’s incredible.

In terms of acting, the two leads are spot-on again, bringing different flavors to the characters than their Swedish counterparts (Kodi Smit-McPhee who plays Owen actually didn’t watch the Swedish film until after the American one was released, to avoid copying and taking away from his own performance…awesome).

Overall, the whole package is amazing. It’s beautiful on its own, but considering my unwavering bias for the original Swedish film, I have a hard time not comparing the two. Maybe one day I’ll put in the American one without having watched the Swedish, and it will become something all its own to me. So, in the end, the Swedish one is better, but the American one is absolutely worth watching. And the author of the novel both films are based upon loved both film interpretations, and on those terms, it’s good enough for me too.

Underworld (dir. Len Wiseman, 2003)

Let’s be real here: we all know the Underworld series is not great cinema. But this first installment is a wonderful slice of the strange “goth” phase of action movies that tonally piggybacked on the Matrix films in the early 2000’s. You know, the movies that looked like they could be a music video for Disturbed meets Marilyn Manson meets Atreyu, but with a long story? Well, the first Underworld film is that style to a T, and it’s awesome. It took me back to my high school days of wishing I was as cool as the kids who dressed entirely in Hot Topic garb (back when Hot Topic was the “scary store” in the mall, and not the pop culture/meme garbage pile it is now), as well as a certain Halloween night involving axes, swords, fake fangs, and friends. Good times.

For anyone who missed this early-00’s fang-fest, it’s the story of a group of vampires fighting a group of werewolves (called Lycans). That’s the movie. Then there’s some betrayal, human vs. superhuman tension, a strange star-crossed love story thing, and lots of hissing at each other between action sequences. Oh, and Kate Beckinsale wearing leather for two hours. Not to mention a chilling performance from Bill Nighy, who completely understands what these movies are going for and lets that shine through in his acting.

When it boils down to it, Underworld is fun in the way that Van Helsing or Hansel + Gretel: Which Hunters is fun. It’s a bit campy, a bit melodramatic, but man is it a good time. Especially if you like vampires (and I do), but aren’t looking for the heavy coming-of-age story of Let The Right One In. If vampires or movies that are “bad in the good way” aren’t your things, I’d skip it. Otherwise, throw it on and have some fun.

Underworld: Evolution (dir. Len Wiseman, 2006)

The fang vs. fur fight continues in this blue-tinged sequel that, in many ways, is an improvement on the original. (It’s even one of the few films in these clusters that I’ve never seen before!) The fight scenes are better, there’s more gore, and the stakes (pun intended) are raised. I mean, there really isn’t a whole lot to say here…it’s more vampires fighting more werewolves, while trying to save Michael, the hybrid of both species from the first film, who is also an unbelievable and annoying love interest.

One thing I do want to bring up, though, is how absolutely terrible the sex scenes are in these movies. I mean, wow. They don’t serve the plot, but that’s to be expected…the real kicker here is they aren’t even sexy. It’s just uncomfortable to watch, and I was by myself. Yikes. I mean, come on. You have Kate Beckinsale wearing leather and fake fangs, being sexy for two hours, except for when she is having sex. Sure, her husband is the director, but just cut the sex scenes then? They are worthless in showing plot or character development, and they aren’t particularly arousing, so just cut the stupid things. And that’s what I have to say about that.

Overall, I do think I like this one better than the first, but not by much, and only because the action scenes are better. They’re both just a good time, and if you liked the first one, you’ll probably like the second one. Now for the real test…the third one: a prequel with a different director. Scary.

Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (dir. Patrick Tatopoulos, 2009)

I never thought I’d see the day…the Underworld prequel is actually the best in the series. I can’t recall another single instance where a prequel, made six years after the original, actually tops the original. Maybe it’ll come to me eventually.

Anyway, last night was the first time I’d ever seen this and to be honest, I was expecting complete trash. The only positive thing I’d heard about this was from the person who gave me these DVDs (she upgraded to Blu-Ray and gave me some awesome stuff for free) who said this was her favorite in the series. I had my doubts…until I actually watched it.

Underworld: Rise of the Lycans reveals the history of the vampire/Lycan war, and the actually heartbreaking way of how it began. It’s a simple enough story: a slave falls in love with the ruler’s daughter. We’ve seen it before. But the way it’s done here is that we have a slave werewolf who was raised under close watch (along with his werewolf kin) of the vampires, who go out and hunt the full werewolves (because the slaves are Lycans, which are werewolves that can kind of control their transformation, so they hunt the ones who can’t), who rises up his fellow Lycans to overthrow the oppressive vampires (which is a cool switch from supporting the vampires in the first two films) and be with the woman he loves. This is actually a very dark slave story, tackling issues of racism through “species-ism.” But it’s no metaphor for America or anything; it’s bigger than that. It’s a story of freedom, and the effect oppression (as well as star-crossed love) can have on people.

Bill Nighy plays Viktor once again, and does so with a melodramatic malice that only someone who “gets” the series can provide. But the real star here is Michael Sheen, who plays our protagonist, Lucian. The emotion and passion he brings to this role belongs in a period epic, which this arguably is, I suppose, but dang. There’s a scene at the end, when he finally goes off the edge as he watches the fate of the woman he loves, where he actually caused a lump in my throat. I wish I were kidding.

I don’t mean for this to be a love letter, because it’s still an Underworld movie. The effects can be pretty terrible in this one (the CGI Lycans look worse than the non-CGI ones…same goes for the blood), and it wouldn’t belong in the series without a god-awful sex scene! At least this one had a purpose for the characters. Kind of.

Overall, I recommend this if you like the Underworld movies and want some background to the war that drives the first two films, but I also recommend this to anyone who likes dark, medieval movies. You can watch it without having seen the first two, and to be honest, I might actually watch this one more than the others solely because I found it so interesting and refreshing for the franchise. I haven’t seen the fourth film, but I think I’ll wait. I’d rather watch this one again.

From Hell (dir. The Hughes Brothers, 2001)

If I told you to imagine a dark thriller starring Johnny Depp about Jack the Ripper that wasn’t directed by Tim Burton, the movie you’re probably imagining would be exactly From Hell. This is one of those movies that you find on TV in the afternoon and end up watching the whole thing because “oh nice, Johnny Depp! Wait…Hagrid is in this?! And Bilbo! Nice!” except you’ll want to watch it unedited because the murders are actually pretty cool.

This movie doesn’t redefine the genre, nor does it do anything really specific to itself and only itself, but it’s still enjoyable to watch. It’s set in London, 1888, and deals with the Jack the Ripper murders. There’s a pretty cool subplot showing classism in London, as well as the rich vs. the “unfortunates” (the prostitutes), and some pretty harsh racism stuff that caught me off guard. There are some really great moments, some stylistic murders, and lots of opium addiction. Though the murders aren’t shown explicitly, they’re filmed in an interesting way that makes you forget that you aren’t seeing the knife go in for yourself, which is a testament to properly done thriller filmmaking.

As far as Alan Moore adaptations go, it’s a watered-down version of what I’m sure the massive graphic novel is, but that doesn’t mean it’s bad. (I mean, the only person who has actually done a Moore novel justice is Zack Snyder’s Watchmen: The Ultimate Cut, and if you disagree, you’re not impressing anyone.)

I would recommend this film to fans of the thriller genre, people who are interested in the Ripper killings, Johnny Depp fans, or if you have your TV on in the afternoon. This is a solid way to spend it.