It's October and the B-Movie Geek, Doc Manson, is back to take the #Shocktober challenge! The quest? To watch 31 horror movies in the 31 days of October. Tonight I'm here to review Annabelle, movie #9 of my October Horror Movie Challenge.
I decided to request the Bluray of Annabelle from the mail-in Netflix service because I really enjoyed The Conjuring (2013). The Annabelle doll was present as an ominous presence in that film, an ever-looming threat lurking within the home of the protagonist paranormal investigators, The Warrens. In the context of The Conjuring, Annabelle was a secondary antagonist, existing separate from the main storyline and thereby providing a richness to the universe within the film.
This shouldn't be surprising, I suppose, given that The Conjuring was based on a true story and that the aforementioned protagonists, the Warrens, are a real life husband-wife paranormal investigation team. The Annabelle doll is likewise teal and is currently stored in the occult museum located at the Warrens' house in Monroe, CT. For posterity, here is a comparison image of the Annabelle doll used in the movie and the one from the real life case.
OK, so why have I spent two paragraphs talking about The Conjuring in an article about Annabelle? Mostly because The Conjuring is a superior experience, filled with a lush sense of period and presence. Meanwhile, it's psuedo-prequel, spin-off, Annabelle, feels like a hollow, horror movie simply checking off the boxes that some Hollywood business executive dictated needed to be covered in a film about a demonic haunting. The film takes a lot of license with the true story of Annabelle. The film is bookended by scenes taking place in more modern times, in which a two female roommates talk about some strange occurrences revolving around the doll. The bulk of the film, however, goes back in time to tell the origin story of the doll.
In the film, the estranged daughter of two mild mannered suburbia folk falls into some sort of satanic cult. For some reason, the daughter returns home with her cult-following boyfriends and murders her parents. Then, the daughter and boyfriend go next door to try to murder the neighbors. In the middle of this second attempted murder, the cops show up and shoot the boyfriend dead. The crazy cult daughter goes into a room filled with a collection of dolls, picks up Annabelle, commits suicide, and after she dies some of her blood happens to fall into the doll's eye socket, which I guess counts as some sort of binding ritual that attaches a demon to the doll.
Can we talk for a moment about how none of this makes any sense? Like, not even Hollywood movie sense. The cult daughter has no reason to target the neighbors, either for murder or for haunting by a demonic devil doll. I'll accept at face value the daughter returning home to kill her parents, but I'm not sure how that act in anyway relates to their plan to attach a demonic presence to an inanimate object. Unless, the cult couple's plan was to kill the parents, and the doll demon-ritual was an after thought borne out of desperation right before the daughter's death? I mean, if the goal was to call forth a demon to possess a doll with a demonic presence, why didn't the cult couple complete this ritual when they were murdering her parents? If the daughter only needed to commit suicide to link the demon to the doll, why did they murder anyone? How did the daughter know that, after she was dead, that her blood would fall exactly as it was needed to possess the doll? Why did she decide to send a demon after the neighbors only after failing to murder them? Why not just send the demon after them in the first place?
No matter how I look at this, I don't really understand what the goal or thought processes might have been leading up to the moments where the Annabelle doll is linked to the demon. There is no attempt at any point to provide motivation for this cultist's actions, and I get the vague impression of a Hollywood suit somewhere telling a frustrated screenwriter, "They're cultists and they just do evil demon stuff! Enough said!" I suspect that my sense of disjointedness in the storytelling is also because the bulk of the film is pure fiction created by the screen writers. Only the bookend scenes, you know the scenes lasting maybe 3 minutes of screen time, are actually based on the true story of the Annabelle doll. I don't know why the filmmakers chose to completely invent a story for the doll instead of retelling the actual true story, but I guess this leaves the film open for a sequel with a minimum need for creativity?
Everything that happens after the doll origin sequence deals with the demon trying to claim the soul of the protagonist neighbor lady's baby. Except, in the logic presented by the movie you can't just take a soul, it has to be given. Also, a baby's can't give their soul away, so, TWIST, the demon was really after the mom's soul the whole time. Since the demon needs mom lady to freely give her soul, the demon messes with the baby a whole lot to make the mom crazy enough to offer up her soul to protect the baby? I don't know, demon logic seems complicated. In the end, this prequel felt like a paint by the numbers horror experience, lacking the real world grounding of its predecessor. It's not very scary, and the demon seems to just do demonic stuff because, hey, it's a demon.
One star.
It's October and the B-Movie Geek, Doc Manson, is back to take the #Shocktober challenge! The quest? To watch 31 horror movies in the 31 days of October. Tonight I'm here to report back on movie #8, an intensely unsettling independent film titled It Follows.
It Follows is one of the best pure horror films that I've seen in some time, and I hesitate to really give anything about it away. The film has a great, relevant premise and introduces its concepts so well that to explain anything here would only serve to ruin the tempo and pacing of the film, which is extremely well crafted.
Ok, so here is the deal. If you like horror movies, you should go watch It Follows right now. Don't read about it; don't ask your friend about it; just get a copy and watch it. Right now. After you've seen it, feel free to come back to this site and read the remainder of this article.
I realize that this sounds like hyperbole, and I admit that the praise is high. Sure, I expect that there are a contingent of horror fans who probably won't like this film for any number of reasons: not enough gore; not enough nudity; the action is too slow; etc. Still, and I know this is subjective, but It Follows is one of the best pure horror films to be released in recent memory. The film has an innovative idea that is genuinely disturbing, made all the more potent by the parable-like lessons one might take from its story.
Broadly, It Follows is about a monster than literally follows you everywhere you go. It will relentlessly come after you, and it will always do so at a walking pace. You can get away from it if you run; you can even drive away to get yourself some distance between you and It. But, It will never stop coming for you. This alone is an interesting premise that plays off of a long-established trope of the genre. For years people have commented that it shouldn't be hard to get away from Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees; neither of these slashers ever move faster than a brisk walk. The creature from It Follows is less physical, and somehow more relentless. No matter where you go, no matter where you hide, It knows where you are and It is coming for you.
This alone would be enough for an interesting premise to a film, but It Follows also adds on a layer of a morality tale. The way in which you become targeted by this creature is by having sex with the person it is currently targeting. The only way to stop being pursued by the creature and survive is to pass It on to someone else. A clever parable in and of itself, but there's even more to it. If you do pass It on to another person, and that person dies, It then reverts down the line and will begin stalking you once again. This means that not only do you need to pass It on, but you need to convince the next person to continue passing It along. And even then, even if you know that it has been passed along once or twice or even three times, there is no guarantee that It wont eventually, someday, find Its way back to you again. Once you catch It, you are never truly safe again.
I also just briefly want to compliment the cinematography on display in the film. I think the majority of the film is shot using wide-angle lenses, and this is a perfect device to compliment the nature of the antagonist. There are a number of shots in the film where you see, in the far distance, someone just walking within the frame of the camera. Is it just another human being? Or has It found our protagonists once again? This is a great, effective method of building tension and suspense within the context of the threat.
So what is the real meaning behind the story of It Follows? Is it a commentary on premarital sex? The inevitability of death? The way in which love and the physical act of sex helps to delay your sense of your own mortality? Is it about the stigma associated with being a young person engaging in sex and developing a reputation amongst their peers? The answer is yes. It Follows is all of those things and none of those things. It also happens to be a damn good horror movie.
Five stars. So good, I didn't even make any silly pictures.
Here we are, 7 days into the October Horror Movie Challenge. Tonight's film is a creature feature from 1981, The Boogens. I don't really have a good explanation for why I chose this film, I simply felt like I'd seen the title and poster in enough places that I finally had to sit down and see what the Boogens was all about. Also, that name is just fun to say. Boogens.
Let's just take another look at that poster art. Look at it! Look at those wiggly, boney hands clawing up at the house! Who knows what horrors await the people that we suppose are inside! I know this probably dates me, but I cannot look at this art without feeling waves of nostalgia for the VHS rental stores of my childhood. It's an experience that I look back on rather fondly, tip toeing my way through the horror aisle, only half daring to look at the boxes for fear of glimpsing something that would give me nightmares.
Looking back, there are many boxes that I can vividly remember sitting on the shelf, daring me to rent them. It was always a roll of the dice as to whether any of what was depicted on the box would actually be depicted in the film itself. Often, the art would have little or nothing to do with any scene in the actual movie. I think Ghoulies is probably the worst offender of this; the monster coming out of the toilet on the cover appeared nowhere in the film but became so iconic that the filmmakers had to put such a scene in the sequel. Ah, memories.
Anyway, back to The Boogens! A mining company is planning to reopen a long-closed mine in a small mountain mining town. Yeah, the mine is central to the plot of the film. This film's version of Crazy Ralph attempts to persuade them to leave the mine closed, but of course no one listens to him. As you can guess, opening the mine unleashes the Boogens! Well, unleashes a Boogen, I guess. I mean, they say there are more than one, but they never really show more than one during any single scene of the film. I guess we should take the characters at their word and presume that there are in fact an army of Boogens infesting the mines, but, sadly, we the audience will never quite know for sure.
The film mostly revolves around two guys who work at the mine that want to get laid as their girlfriends come to visit for the weekend. Also, one of the girls brings a dog. One of the guys is a terrible, sex-obsessed caricature, while the other guy also ends up having sex, but with the other girl. You'll have to excuse me, as I sort of forget which guy is which, but rest assured one of them dies and the more well-rounded one plays hero, blasts the mine shut with a bag of TNT (yes, a bag of TNT), and lives. I'm not sure what kind of morality play is on display in the Boogens, but there you go. That's basically the whole plot.
Oh, one of the girls dies. And so does her dog. Sorry, I know, that's probably kind of hard to accept, but it was the 80's and this was a time when children and dogs still sometimes died in movies. Don't worry, though, the other girl makes it out OK!
This brings us to the monsters. Take another look at that poster. Sadly, those bony hands don't really ever come into play in the film itself. These, uh, "monsters" are sort of turtle-like mutants with tentacles. Also, the tentacles have a single claw on them? But sometimes the tentacles have a mutant baby hand with claws on the end of it? I can't say I'm an expert in Boogen physiology, but I'm really rather unsure that they have any sort of long, wavy bone hands like shown on the poster. Also disappointing, the term "Boogens" is never actually said in the film itself.
Despite failing to fulfill the wavy handed terror promised by its poster, The Boogens still manages to entertain. It's not great cinema, folks, but there are worse horror movies from 1981. I mean, at least, I assume there are.
Three stars. Boogens!
If you've been following along, you know that I am up to movie #6 of the October Horror Movie Challenge, which I've affectionately termed my Shocktober quest. I'm now over one-fifth of the way to my goal! The best part of this challenge is getting the opportunity and the excuse to reach back and watch those films that I somehow just never got around to at release. Drag Me to Hell is a perfect example of this.
When I searched for the release date, I could hardly believe that Drag Me to Hell was released in 2009. It seems incomprehensible that this film has eluded me for nearly 6 years. After all, this is a movie that I seem destined to love, what with the involvement of Sam Raimi, the man that conceived and directed my favorite horror series of all time, the Evil Dead.
And there are things about this film that I adore. There is a unique mix of horror and slapstick, executed with a deftness often lacking in horror comedies. The seance sequence is so incredibly reminiscent of any number of demon possession scenes in the Evil Dead that I can't help but think that these films take place in the same universe. There's a frenetic energy to the proceedings and the demon attack scenes that I can't help but love.
Despite this, I'm not actually sure I really liked Drag Me to Hell. I think the fundamental problem I had with the film is that the protagonist, Christine, seems like a perfectly nice and good human being. At no point does it feel like she deserves the gypsy curse that has been placed upon her. Frankly, in trying to change up the standard formula, the film simply emphasizes why horror films are typically full of "bad" people deserving of the fates that befall them. At no point did I want to see the bad things that befall our heroine.
Beyond this failing, there was little exciting about the film, no true stand-out sequences. The frantic, darting camera work only served to remind me of how much I want another Evil Dead film. The moment that the psychic put the button into the envelop, the end of the film was obvious to both my wife and myself. Given the bad luck that befalls Christine at every turn, of course the ending plays out the way in which it does.
Drag Me to Hell is a perfectly competent film. It is well made, with great acting, with fun special effects. I found the script to be somewhat lacking, and I felt no real motivation to root for or against the protagonist - the series of events that befall Christine just felt unfair and not in any way that I found compelling.
I did really dig the old school Universal logo on the front and end of the film though.
Two stars.
Dark Was the Night is the fifth movie in my quest to watch 31 horror movies in 31 days this October. I had never really heard of this movie, but a high rating on Netflix Instant Streaming and a quick peek of the trailer on YouTube later, and there I was, settling in for the night. This is probably my favorite part of the SHOCKTOBER 2015 movie challenge - I haven't really written anything down, there is no plan, and I've been quite content to just sort of choose a film to watch.
The plot of the film follows Sherriff Paul Shield (Kevin Durand), distraught from the recent loss of his young son, as he investigates animal tracks and creature sightings in his small, isolated town. Durand gets to express his acting chops a bit as the mourning father, and that subplot provides a human element to the film that facilitates investment into these characters. It's a smart choice as, after all, most good monster movies are really about the people first.
The focus on the characters, combined with the filmmakers' decision to keep the monster in the shadows, makes for a film that is more of a slow burn as opposed to the types of kinetic creature features that you more commonly find on the SyFy Channel. You probably already know whether or not a film like this will appeal to you. It's not a fun film, per se, but I certainly had fun watching it.
That said, I did appreciate the old school approach, keeping the creature out of shot for much of the film. This works well to build suspense, and the pay off when the creature is revealed at least approaches satisfying. The actual creature effects aren't the best CGI you've ever seen, but they are perfectly serviceable for the needs of the film's climax.
I think I would have been more pleased with the creature design if it had been more outlandish. Based on the movie's title card, and the wide gait of the creature shown as tracks earlier in the film, I was sort of expecting a more tree-like creature, something more like a malevolent ent. Reflecting, I guess it is possible that maybe the creature was tree-like; perhaps the skin did have the texture of bark. Still, I'm really not sure. My initial impression was that the creature was more reptile-like. If you watched the film, let me know your thoughts on the nature of the monster in the comments below!
All told, Dark Was the Night was a good way to spend an hour and a half, particularly if you enjoy slower paced films. I must admit it was refreshing to watch a film that took itself seriously, as this isn't too common in creature features these days.
Four stars.
Doc Manson returns to his roots for the month of October, taking the Horror Movie Challenge. The quest before him? To watch 31 horror movies in 31 days. And to be extra ambitious, try to write something about each one on this website. So far, so good. We're through movie #4, which is the foreign import [REC] 2.
The film is a sequel to the Spanish film [REC], a well-made zombie-infection type movie with a twist. I previously reviewed the first film, and you can refresh yourself on the series by clicking here. Go ahead, I'll wait for you to come back.
Alright, so let's be clear: here, there by spoilers! If you don't want the end of [REC] spoiled for you, you will need to stop reading here. The wrinkle introduced into the zombie infection formula at the end of that film plays prominently into the plot of the sequel which necessitates talking about that development at length.
Last warning, SPOILERS AHEAD!
Alright, so, the zombies aren't just zombies. Turns out that the infested apartment building is the site of ongoing scientific experimentation run by a doctor associated with the Vatican. His research project? Finding the molecular basis for demonic possession. Unfortunately, the doctor did his job a little too well, isolating an enzyme found in the blood and saliva that is able to transmit like a virus. The infected folks aren't just zombies, they're possessed by one demon whose consciousness co-habitates all of the infected folk simultaneously.
Demon zombie hive-mind, then? Got it? Good.
The sequel picks up right where the first one leaves off -literally, with the same shot. The action picks up with a new group of characters, a SWAT team escorting a Ministry of Health official into the apartment building. The film is still filmed in the found-footage or shaky-cam style, although the SWAT team has some interesting picture in picture capable equipment that provides unique view points that I hadn't previously seen in films of this types. Definitely bonus points for innovative cinematography.
The film also splits its runtime between a second group of characters. Scenes play out from multiple angles and perspectives, and time has a way of skipping back and forth. It's rather satisfying to realize that you're watching a scene play out from a parallel perspective, and to piece together the continuity on your own. The script is smart and it keeps the film engaging.
Much like the first [REC], the sequel is a great film. The only issue is, once again, they introduce new information during the closing minutes of the film. As a viewer that likes to try to piece together stories, I'm conflicted by the continued use of this device by the [REC] series. Like an Agatha Christie novel that deliberately denies you information, I felt somewhat cheated as the credits began to roll. Don't get me wrong, I like being surprised, but I hate it when the rules are suddenly changed. I'm mostly just hoping that the same formula isn't applied to the third film in the series.
I hope to find out for sure later this month -both [REC] 3 and [REC] 4 are currently on Netflix Instant Streaming!
Minor complaints aside, this film was good. GOOD.
Four stars.
Doc Manson is back writing at the B-Movie Geek for SHOCKTOBER 2015! The quest? To watch 31 horror movies in 31 days. Today, we're talking about movie #3, a horror-comedy from New Zealand, Housebound, which is readily available for your consumption via Netflix Instant Streaming.
Housebound tells the story of wayward youth, Kylie Bucknell (Morgana O'Reilly), whom, after a botched ATM robbery during the film's opening minutes, finds herself sentenced to house arrest at her mother and step-father's creepy old house in the country. The disaffected youth has some difficulty adjusting to the quiet life back at home and, before Kylie has a chance to settle in, inexplicable happenings begin to occur. Before long it seems that the old country home might have some unwanted guests that never quite managed to vacate the premises after an untimely, violent end - if you get my ghostly drift.
I won't go into too many more details about the plot, as the film unfolds into a rather clever and satisfying little tale. Beyond the plot, then, I'd like to mention that the film has the honor of being one of the more subtle horror-comedies that I've seen in some time. Numerous events happen, but unlike a lot of films where slapstick elements rue the day, Housebound manages to keep an understated tone throughout its most humorous scenes. It comes across as a dry sense of humor, maybe unsurprising given the film's country of origin. It was a refreshing change from the more obliquely obvious comedic elements found in most other film's from the horror-comedy genre.
I feel like this review is a little short, but it's difficult to talk any more about the film without spoiling some elements of the plot. Given that I enjoyed the storytelling on display, I hesitate to spoil anything more here. Instead, I think I would encourage you to watch Housebound yourself. It's something of a slow burn, but the subtle humor gives it an energy that you don't often find.
The only other thing I'll say is to watch out for that cheese grater. Yeah, it gets used, and it gets used exactly like you think it will.
Ick.
Three stars.
It's October and the B-Movie Geek, Doc Manson, is back to take the #Shocktober challenge! The quest? To watch 31 horror movies in the 31 days of October. Movie #2 is the WWE Studios produced slasher film, See No Evil 2. Full disclosure, this entry into my SHOCKTOBER journey was chosen due to its relevance to my current online activities as co-host of an online talk show about professional wrestling, the NAIborhood podcast.
As mentioned, the film was produced by WWE Studios and stars the Big Red Demon, Kane (Glen Jacobs). I actually thought that the first See No Evil was an OK slasher film, and that Kane's portrayal of Jacob Goodnight -stupid name aside- made for a great slasher antagonist. Kane, after all, is a legitimate 300-lb, 7-foot tall, muscular monster of a man; to say that he is physically imposing is an understatement.
In the sequel, Jacob Goodnight is now missing an eye (the result of the climax of the first film), and wears a clear mask. This provides a more distinctive, iconic look for the killer. Goodnight also makes less use of his chain-hook weapon in the sequel, which in theory ought to help increase variation in the kills. In reality, Goodnight tends to use his bare hands a lot more, and only occasionally makes use of some sort of amputation knife/bone saw combination weapon. Oddly, it also seems that the filmmakers felt as though the violence ratio of the film had to be increased, as nearly all of the kills from the first film appear here in flashback sequences.
I enjoyed the first film, but not everything about it worked, and some of that carries over to See No Evil 2. The whole God's Hand Killer moniker and the underlying religious motivations for the Jacob Goodnight character never quite gel. The religious undertones to the killings just don't seem justified in what is otherwise a standard slasher film. This is material better suited to a headier film.
Beyond that, I continue to think that Glen Jacobs is a fantastic choice to play a horror movie slasher. I say give this guy the hockey mask and give him a go as Jason in the next Friday the 13th (Come on, we all know it's coming sooner or later). I also loved the performances put in by Danielle Harris (Halloween, Hatchet II) and Katharine Isabelle (American Mary, Ginger Snaps).
Credit goes to the screenwriters, Nathan Brookes and Bobby Lee Darby, as they've woven in a couple of great moments into See No Evil 2. The standout is a scene in which one of the legs of a paraplegic man is skewered by a hook on a chain. This moment stuck out to me because, as would be expected, the man doesn't feel any pain in response to the violence against him. There's an odd sort of detachment in his reaction that the directors really translate to the audience through the deft use of visual and audio cues. It's a small moment, but it works well.
The Soska Sisters have directed a finely produced film, coaxed good performance from their actors, and delivered some above average cinematography. Seriously, the use of colors and clarity in certain shots of this film are way above the level of a direct to DVD film. In light of the many things done so well in this film, it's all the more disappointing then that the end sequence is so poorly executed.
In the film's final moments, Jacob Goodnight is stabbed by a large surgical needle and pumped full of embalming fluid. The embalming fluid sequence is just poorly shot; too much time elapses between the stabbing and the activation of the fluid pump mechanism. The scene lacks any sort of proper cadence, marring the tension in what is otherwise a fulfilling and creative end to the antagonist.
That said, I'll watch another one. I guess you could say, I'd be glad to See More Evil.
OK, that was funnier in my head.
Three stars.
It's October and the B-Movie Geek, Doc Manson, is back to take the #Shocktober challenge! The quest? To watch 31 horror movies in the 31 days of October. The first flick? A fun b-movie creature feature and zombie combo called Zombeavers.
I found this gem on Netflix streaming, so if you're a horror fan with a subscription to that service then the barrier to entry is as low as it gets - no need to track down any kind of physical media. The movie starts with a pair of truckers making small talk with dialogue reminiscent of a Kevin Smith film. The action switches over to another car, this one filled with three sorority sisters with filthy mouths and filthier SnapChat accounts, seeking the refuge of a quiet, secluded cabin with no cell phone service.
Stop me if you've heard this one before.
The foul-mouthed dialogue continues with our sorority sister protagonists. I was a bit torn on the writing of these characters, as the amount of times I heard the word "bitches" in a ten minute period was approaching my personal limit. On the other hand, if I take a step back and try to imagine a groups of characters that might actually talk like this to each other, a group of coeds does fit the bill, even if it might be a stereotypical portrayal. At the end of the car trip sequence, I sort of had the impression that this was a group of college aged females written like stereotypical college males. I'm not sure if this was meant to be some sort of commentary by the screenwriter, or if this was just a male trying to write females the way that he hopes nubile young coeds talk to one another when alone.
After typing that last paragraph, I took a quick detour over the IMDB and found that Zombeavers has three writer credits, all of them male. Draw your own conclusions.
So, maybe I'm sounding a bit down on this film, but overall I enjoyed it a great deal. It has everything you want from a goofy b-movie. The zombified beavers are hilarious, and I appreciated the way that they seemed impossible to kill, even when in pieces, much like the zombies from the Return of the Living Dead series (You can check out my review of the first film in that series here). Zombeavers really explores its core concept, and even goes above and beyond my expectations for the film.
This might be considered a bit of a spoiler, so consider yourself warned.
Seriously, spoiler ahead.
Stop reading if you don't want the brilliance of Zombeavers spoiled.
Still here? Ok, last warning.
Let's just say the Were-Beaver transformation sequence is amazing, and really fulfills the promise of the Zombeavers premise. I also appreciated the stinger sequence at the end of the credits, in which the filmmakers execute on a visual pun by suggesting that the zombie affliction is passed onto a hive of honey bees.
Get it? Zom-bees? Oh man, that's good. Also, I'm pretty proud of my own pun that snuck into the paragraph above - "Stinger sequence." Yes, I'm a dork.
That's the quality on display in Zombeavers. The concept is well thought out and is executed as well as you could reasonably hope. Also, for fans of the tropes of the genre, I can report that, yes, there is nudity and violence galore to be seen.
Zombeavers was a great kick off to the Shocktober 2015 season. Highly recommended for fans of horror silliness.
Four stars.
I hope that it might be understandable when I say that I approached The Last Lovecraft: Relic of Cthulhu with some caution. I hadn't really heard anything about the film from my usual sources and only came across the title while randomly browsing on Netflix. I checked out the trailer and knew then and there that I had to give this one a watch.
In case it had gone unnoticed by the casual web visitor, I'm something of a closet geek for the writer HP Lovecraft and his Cthulhu mythos. Tales of the Great Old Ones have long captured my imagination and are one of the cornerstones of my horror genre fandom. Unfortunately, there have not been too many good films based on his works. With Re-Animator as one of the few exceptions, I've been fairly disappointed with Lovecraft-based films in general.
The Last Lovecraft: Relic of Cthulhu tells the tale of Jeff (Kyle Davis), the last living descendant of the author HP Lovecraft. Together with his slacker friend Charlie (Devin McGinn), Jeff is charged with protecting the Relic of Cthulhu and preventing it from falling into the hands of an evil cult. Having already resurrected the general of Cthulhu's army, Starspawn, the cult wants to use the Relic to awaken Cthulhu and thereby bring about the end of the world. It's a suitably heady situation to force upon the bumbling, unsure heroes and serves well as a framework for a horror-comedy.
I thought that the use of Lovecraft and the Cthulhu mythos was particularly inspired and congratulate the writers for making the idea work. It's not often that I think of the Great Old Ones and think comedy. The seriousness and gravity Lovecraft lent his writings provides the perfect juxtaposition for the tongue-in-cheek approach employed here. Further, I thought the film did a great job summarizing the mythos and simplifying story points such that the uninitiated should have no problem following along. A slick and entertaining animation sequence helps quickly cover large amounts of exposition, serving to fill in the back story and allowing the audience to watch Cthulhu brandish a decapitated Triceratops head as a weapon! A win-win situation, if there ever was one.
The acting is strong overall, but I feel that the supporting characters overshadow the lead. Kyle Davis plays a solid everyman-type hero but cannot compete with the boundless energy injected by Devin McGinn's performance. Although the majority of the film's runtime is spent on the two leads, the real highlight of the film for me was the nerdy sidekick character, Paul (Barak Hardley). Whether breaking both of his arms or awkwardly trying to give away a friendship bracelet, Hardley demonstrates superb comedic timing and is a real pleasure to watch. I hope to see more of his work in the future.
Another highlight for me was the quality of the overall production, which was generally quite high. This movie demonstrates good cinematography, particularly for an independent film. Further, it's not often that direct-to-DVD films have copious amounts of special effects, especially practical ones, and it's even rarer that the effects look as good as they do here. There are a few monsters with some fun, creative designs that get a decent amount of screen time. The way in which these creatures and effects are filmed and presented reminded me a lot of Guillermo del Toro's Hellboy films, by which I mean they are generally well-lit and unabashedly put on display. The filmmakers want the audience to see these creations and to celebrate in their other-worldliness. In short, the effects are as good as can be expected for a film of this budget, even if they aren't all exactly perfect (looking at you, fish-wolf things).
The Bottomline: The Last Lovecraft: Relic of Cthulhu is a fun, entertaining film that horror-comedy fans will want to see. The film is hugely successful given its independent roots and budgetary constraints. Highly recommended and available now on Netflix.
Four stars.