zc

Saw III (2006)
Once Again Unto the Breach

/ Movies (Gore) / Leave a Comment

SAW 3 movie posterZombos Says: Very Good

“Hello, Zoc.”

“What? Who’s that?” I shook the sleep away. It was 2:30 in the morning. I had
dragged my butt back from watching the midnight showing of Saw III and
was fighting sleep to write an early review of it.

“Let’s play a game.”

“Who’s talking to me?” I asked.

A squeaking sound came from the dark corner of my attic office. A tricycle slowly
rolled into the circle of sparse light that illuminated my desk. It was Papa
Smurf.

“I am Jigsaw. Your life is an empty shell.”

“You’re not Jigsaw! You’re Papa Smurf!” I cried, frantically pinching my hand to
wake up.

“I am—”

“You’re Papa Smurf with large red targets painted on his beard.” I pinched harder.

“I am here to help you face your fears. Of course, you may die in an extremely
painful and gory way, but you will thank me in the end.”

“Okay, look, when Zombos said I needed to cover these midnight showings while he’s
away, he didn’t mention sh*t like this.” I gave up on pinching my hand. It
hurt anyway. “Okay, I’ll bite. What’s the game? I’m dreaming all this so
it doesn’t matter, anyway.”

“Look at you; you are tired, overworked, and barely notice the richness of life
around you. Your entire existence is now focused on only one thing. Blogging.
How sad. To lose the gifts of Twitter, of Facebook, and yes, even the gift of
World of Warcraft, just so you can type away on that cold, hard laptop
keyboard. Click, click, and click all day and well into the night.

For what?

You have lost touch with your inner self, Zoc, and those most important around you. I
will help you find the way back to your social obligations—did I mention you
may die horribly like a twisted pretzel, or maybe a ribcage deboned would be
visually cool—back to your social life that is waiting patiently for you, and
the loved ones who miss your tweets and incessant profile changes on
Facebook.”

“What’s the catch?” I asked.

“The game is simple. Write the review. If I like it, you will live and have fame and
fortune. If I don’t like it, you will make like a corkscrew and go pop in a
shower of crimson. Make your choice.”

I always knew deep down that Papa Smurf was evil. I just didn’t know how much
until now. Creepy little guy, anyway.

“Okay,” I agreed. I was dreaming, so what did I have to lose? I also vowed to give up
either midnight showings of horror movies or drinking that fourth cup of
coffee. I started typing on my cold keyboard and relived the horrors of Saw III.

 

Before you can get comfortably nestled in your theater seat with your drink and
popcorn, Saw III starts with a little game. Should the victim saw his
foot off or just mash it down to a bright red pulp in order to slip it through
his shackle. Let’s see, you’re a horror fan, what would you rather see?
Oh, wait, sawing off a limb was done in the first Saw, wasn’t it? No
sense repeating that, then.

And before you can take a swig of Coke, and eat a handful of popped kernels,
another game brings us to a room, a guy who is about to have a really bad day,
and another set of chains, although these have large hooks at the ends.

Bloody chunks should have been the tagline for this movie. You do get to see lots of
them.

Funny, but no one sitting around me in the theater—it was surprisingly packed for a
midnight show—ever touched their drinks or popcorn after that one.

The story——do you really care there’s a story linking all this gory carnage together?— revolves
around two plotlines: Amanda (Shawnee Smith) is back with a vengeance as
Jigsaw’s eager apprentice, and a man who must come to grips with the loss of
his son, and the witness, judge, and killer involved with his son’s tragic
death.

Director Darren Lynn Bousman moves between both stories using a fair amount of woozy
camera shots, dark lighting, and grainy, garish coloration to move characters
through a succession of torture tableaus highlighting the devious, extremely
unkind, and painfully realized Rube Golderg devices that come into play for
unlucky victims.

Once Jeff (Angus Macfadyen) escapes into Jigsaw’s maze, he must face the people he
blames for his son’s death. Will he save them from horrible, painful deaths—and
disappoint horror fans if he does—or will he let them suffer and die gruesomely
for our entertainment and sadistic voyeurism?

Surprisingly, even knowing what must happen—this is a horror movie, after all—the tension is
still palpable, the expectations still hopeful. Everyone’s acting sustains this
suspense well as does the direction, although the woozy camera is used a bit
much and dilutes some scenes down into confusion.

As Jeff makes his way to salvation or damnation, Doctor Lynn (Bahar Soomekh) is
kidnapped by Amanda. Good old Jigsaw (Tobin Bell, of course) is not doing so
well. He needs a doctor. In one of the most gorily effective scenes I’ve seen
to date, the doctor tackles his brain tumor with a few handy Home Depot tools
lying around the old torture device workshop. I tried the old standby of
closing my eyes, but Bousman put the foley (sound effects) guys into overtime
with this scene. The squishy, ripping, sucking, peeling back the scalp, cutting
the skull, and wrenching the bone fragments out audio is the best use of nauseating
sounds I’ve heard in a horror movie.

So many directors forget the sounds and the smells of horror, you know? and only
focus on the visuals.

Considering the stark, bloody chunky close-ups of peeled away skin and the drill bit biting
into his head—with a lot of close-up blood bubbles dribbling around the drill
bit—this scene is one sustained gorefest treat.

Did I forget to mention Doctor Lynn is sporting a beautiful new shotgun shell
collar, designed by Amanda?

A bit showy, but definitely a party conversation starter (or ender, depending).
If Jigsaw dies, Doctor Lynn’s head goes bang. If things weren’t bad enough
Amanda is going off the deep end and Jigsaw is having trouble staying alive and
keeping her in check. Woozy flashbacks tell the story of Amanda and how she
came to be Jigsaw’s apprentice and heir apparent.

Jeff finally meets the man who killed his son, tidily stuffed into the Twister, a
fiendish device that does exactly what its name implies. His arms, legs, and
head are locked into a 360 degree rotating armature.

Guess what happens next.

Will Jeff save him, or spend too much time debating what he should do while bones
crack and sinews snap? While Jeff deals with this latest conundrum, the doctor
and Jigsaw have a nice chat about suffering and murder.

Tobin Bell is so convincing as Jigsaw he makes your hair stand on end; much like
Anthony Hopkins’ Hannibal Lecter charisma. Jigsaw is so self-righteous, so
certain what he is doing is proper; his character embodies the insanity of
extreme moral superiority and certainty without a grounding in reality.

In a twisting climax (pun intended), Jeff confronts Jigsaw, the doctor, and Amanda.

Will he make the right choice? Will Jigsaw once again play his game too well?

Exactly who is Jigsaw playing games with here and why does he think he’s teaching
people lessons when he’s not leaving anyone alive in his classroom?

Saw III is hard horror. There’s  supernatural horror, sensual horror, ghostly horror, rational and irrational
horror, and hard horror. Hard horror guts you like a fish and makes you flop
around after being gutted. Hard horror doesn’t care about messy character
involvements, or deep narrative, or witty scripting. It filets your senses.

The midnight showing I attended was sold out. I am not sure if that’s a good thing
for horror in general, but it certainly may bode well for Lionsgate and the Saw
franchise. The acting and scripting is done well enough, and the ever ingenious
evolution of the main star of this franchise, the convoluted machine of death,
is an unforgettable draw for the more demented gore and torture fan—

“Um-hum…” Papa Smurf Jigsaw cleared his throat. “…for the more avid horror fan of the genre.”

“Well,” I said.

“It will do.”

“So I win, then?”

“No.”

“What? You said I would win!”

“Surely,  you of all people should realize that you will have to wait for that.”

“Wait?”

“Wait for the sequel of course; there is always a sequel,” said Papa Smurf as he and his tricycle squeaked back into the darkness.

“Noooooooo!”

The Magic of The Prestige (2006)

/ Movies (Horror) / 1 Comment

The Prestige movie posterZombos Says: Very Good

Like a well-performed routine of cups and balls, director Christopher Nolan and writer Jonathan Nolan manipulate the nonlinear twists and turns of Christopher Priest’s novel, The Prestige, pausing here and there just long enough to make sure we are watching closely until the revelatory climax. Steampunk science-fiction merges with Victorian-era stage magic in this engaging story of rival magicians striving to upstage one another in a dangerously escalating battle of wits, secrets, and one-upmanship bravado.

Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman) and Alfred Borden’s (Christian Bale) obsessions for their magical art, and for one teleportation illusion in particular–the Transported Man–provide the drama in this story set against the backdrop of turn-of-the-century London. Mingling the social horrors of workhouses–where little girls could be sent  for want of money and family–with the wonderment of stage magicians, the headliners of their day, performing their pseudo-scientific and preternatural miracles to the amazement and delight of their Industrialization-era audiences.

…

The Magic of The Prestige (2006)Read More »

Interview: Angel’s Blade Actor Jeb Toms

/ Movies (Indie) / 1 Comment

In the upcoming film, Angel's Blade (2008) a young girl is possessed by Mayan spirits. When she dies, the spirits live on, haunting a lonely stretch of road. A man finds that the spirits are responsible for the death of his wife. Unfortunately, the spirits have followed him home – and are now after his young son's soul. Actor Jeb Toms steps into the closet to talk about himself and his role in Angel's Blade.

…

Interview: Angel’s Blade Actor Jeb TomsRead More »

Interview: John McCarty’s Fearmakers

/ Documentaries / 1 Comment

FearmakersI met author John McCarty (Splatter Movies) at the recent Fangoria Weekend of Horrors Convention in New Jersey, where he showed clips from his documentary, Fearmakers.

I was interested by his determination to chronicle the  creative people who have made horror cinema a passion for horrorheads everywhere and asked him about it.

What led you to create the documentary, Fearmakers?

Around 1994 or so an editor at St. Martin’s Press approached me to do a book on the directors behind the cinema’s most enduring – i.e., classic – horror, SF, and suspense films. I called the book The Fearmakers and it profiled around twenty of them, from Benjamin Christensen to Stuart Gordon.

A year or so after The Fearmakers was published a Texas-based filmmaker with whom I was Sleaze working on another book called The Sleaze Merchants suggested turning The Fearmakers into a television series. He got a Texas-based production company interested and we selected a baker’s dozen of the filmmakers profiled in the book for the episodes, and taped the series in 1996, interviewing actors, directors, film technicians, and so forth on both coasts. I served as on-camera host (a mistake I always believed) and narrator.

When the series was completed, it was shopped around, and sold well overseas, to Japan, the Middle East, France, Britain, etc, where each territory was able to substitute me with an on-camera host of their own speaking their own language. The series never received any domestic play in the States, and was never released on DVD here, probably because it lacked a “name” as host, even though the shows themselves were filled with name interviewees, from John Carpenter and Richard Matheson to Joe Dante and Stuart Gordon.

About a year ago, I contacted the production company in Texas and made a deal with them to take over the show and re-do it on my own, cutting them in on any domestic distribution deal I might make. I retained myself as narrator, but eliminated myself as on-camera host so as not to have a host at all. I’d always had a fondness for making films and not just writing about them, so I was not unfamiliar with the filmmaking and editing process. The digital realm had opened up a whole new world of possibilities for us would-be auteurs so I acquired some heavy-duty movie editing software programs and went to work, completely re-fashioning the baker’s dozen original episodes into the package of ten half-hour programs available now, which I am taking to market. It’s a labor of love, aimed squarely at us fans of the genre.

…

Interview: John McCarty’s FearmakersRead More »

Interview: Closet Space’s Mel House

/ Movies (Indie) / Leave a Comment

829109358_m_1 Any movie with the word “closet” in the title holds a special place in our hearts. And Mel House, director of Closet Space, was kind enough to invite us into his closet to chat about his upcoming film.

What’s Closet Space about and why should horrorheads see it?

Closet Space centers on five graduate students searching for their missing professor. At first they have no idea where the guy went to – he’s just gone. When the students get out to the “site” (which is a farmhouse in the middle of nowhere), they discover a door that opens up onto a seemingly endless, lightless pocket dimension. The laws of nature and physics are merely the first layers to be peeled back and discarded as the group continues their inexhaustible search for their mentor—which leads them deep inside the ‘Closet Space.’ But…there are things that live inside the vast emptiness. Horrible, hungry things. With tentacles.

First of all, I think horror aficionados should check out Closet Space because I think we succeeded in making a dark and gruesome picture.  Too often these days you see people making horror flicks just to “cash in” or whatever, because the genre is a proven moneymaker.

The people involved in Closet Space actually love the genre. It’s not a joke to us. We are in this for the long haul. In addition, what we tried to do with Closet Space was make a low-budget horror movie…without all the trappings of low-budget horror moviemaking that you see so often these days. Every new horror flick on the shelves seems to be some 10th-generation slasher rip on Scream, or worse yet, a horror-comedy. Then, if you’re suckered into a rental by some (probably misleading) box art, you get little to no delivery on the special effects front. Compounding that, what little FX gags you do get treated to are really, really bad CGI. Fortunately, just about all of our special FX on Closet Space were done practically (by the extremely talented guys at Oddtopsy FX), and what little digital stuff we have is being handled by Visual Odyssee, who are masters of their game.

…

Interview: Closet Space’s Mel HouseRead More »

Ghost of Mae Nak (2005)

/ Movies (Ghostly) / Leave a Comment

Ghost of Mae Nak Zombos Says: Very Good

In this Thai horror film, writer and director Mark Duffield updates the legend of Mae Nak, which many Thai people reverentially believe in, adds J-Horror makeup and shock-cuts, and ups the ante with a few well-choreographed gore stunts. The gore stunts rely less on bloody chunks and more on creative lighting, timing, and framing to deliver chilling tableaus of vengeance wrought by the ghost of Mae Nak when anyone gets in her way.

Along the way, Duffield maneuvers through the Thai cultural nuances of family and society to keep the story interesting for Western audiences not accustomed to seeing young people turn to elderly family members and Buddhist monks for help and guidance. In Western horror movies, it’s usually your family and the authorities who either ignore your pleas for help, or try to kill you; so it’s refreshing to see grandmothers who believe in ghosts and take you to blind seers for help. Duffield also tones down the exaggerated acting style common in Thai films, which lends more seriousness to the story.

Nak and Mak are soon-to-be newlyweds. Not only do they need to find a place to live fairly quickly, they also must cope with the usual pressures of work and doting families while preparing for their wedding in present day Bangkok. Mak is also coping with prescient nightmares regarding one disgruntled ghost with long black hair and a hole in her head big enough you could drive a bus through.

When they find a fixer-upper old house in the Phra Khonang section, the unscrupulous and very superstitious real estate agent pressures Mak (Siwat Chotchaicharin) into signing the contract without reading the fine print. Two thieves have also staked out the house, patiently waiting for Nak (Pataratida Pacharawirapong) and Mak to move in with their wedding presents. The house also contains one previous tenant not mentioned in the lease–possibly the original owner–late of this world, but still looking to fill the void left by the loss of her husband and child. Mae Nak, the ghostly tenant, takes a fancy to Mak and haunts his dreaming and waking moments.

On the plus side, Mae Nak goes after anyone who tries to hurt Mak. So when the real-estate agent tries to execute the fine print clause that would force Nak and Mak out of their new home, the ghost follows him. The poor fellow winds up losing more than he bargained for. Now let’s see, what about those thieves? Sadly, they also experience a crushing reversal of fortune, but not before they put Mak in the hospital with a coma.

Then there’s the shady attendant to the astrologer Nak goes to for advice. My, my, my, so many unscrupulous people around, what’s a vengeful ghost to do? In the film’s best horrific scene, the attendant becomes a decorative window. It’s a one-two-three stunt that ends with a doggy treat; a nice example of timing and coordination.

But Mak is still in a coma, and Nak is hampered in her attempts to help him by Mae Nak, who apparently wants Mak for herself, which means he has to die. Buddhist monks are called in, and in two lively scenes involving levitation, Mae Nak puts up quite a fight. Nak must fight against time as the monks prepare to release Mak’s possessed body by performing trepanation–a similar surgery done on Mae Nak to appease her restless spirit.

Duffield uses ambiguity here, as the legend of Mae Nak is ambiguous to begin with. On the one hand, Thai people revere her for the endless love story surrounding her, but then threaten misbehaving children with the mention of her name on the other. Unrequited love or not, she does have a reputation for a nasty temper. This ambiguous nature of Mae Nak extends to her actions in the film. While she does dispatch anyone threatening Nak and Mak, she has a choke-hold on Mak and keeps Nak from stopping her. So what’s it to be? Freedom from ghostdom or recapturing a lost love through Mak? It’s a difficult decision for Mae Nak, which Duffield reflects in the conflicting actions she takes while both helping Nak to free her earth-bound spirit, but stifling Nak’s actions to save Mak.

Another interesting ambiguity running through the film is how modern Bangkok is filled with very old traditions. Buddhist monks treating patients in hospitials is a form of alternative medicine rarely seen in the West. Duffield’s audio commentary on the DVD is filled with observations about these traditions, along with his rationale for choosing scenes and their setups–including why you never really see Nak ever kiss Mak in the film. The extras also include the director’s video diary and the theatrical trailer.

The ending is a sequelization-antic (my term for the type of ending commonly used in horror films to set up the franchise for sequels) that actually works and sets up the premise for more Mae–don’t get in my way or else–Nak films. But before the ending, there is an unexpected twist you may or may not see coming.

Director, writer and cinematographer Mark Duffield and a talented cast of actors and crew deliver an effective and modern ghost story based on an old tale of love found, love lost, and love sought, and adds a few dashes of visual horror to spice it up.

Interview: Ghost of Mae Nak’s Mark Duffield

/ Movies (Ghostly) / Leave a Comment


Ghost of Mae Nak

In your article in Asian Cult Cinema (No. 51), you mention the challenge of directing the film in the Thai language. What were the other cultural challenges you faced–as a Western writer and director–in making The Ghost of Mae Nak , a Thai language horror film?

Making Ghost of Mae Nak in Thailand as a Thai language horror film did bring about many challenges. The day before filming, the entire Ghost of Mae Nak cast and crew went to the Mae Nak shrine in Bangkok to give an offering and asked Mae Nak for permission to make a film about her. This is an actual shrine to Mae Nak where many Thai people ask for guidance and blessing. I felt she gave us her blessing as the filming went very smooth and it was a joy to direct.

Some members of the crew were superstitious about Mae Nak and would wear Buddhist amulets to protect themselves from her spirit. And the actress named ‘Cartoon' Pornthip Papanai who played the Ghost Of Mae Nak– and the period Mae Nak– would pray to her on set to ask her for permission and blessing before we shot the scene.

Communicating with cast and crew was difficult at first, but filmmaking is a slow process and we eventually learned to find ways of understanding. Of course I had translators, and there was the script, which was written in English and translated perfectly into Thai to work from. As a director I had to be precise about what I wanted and always double-checked the information was clearly conveyed. A film director is highly regarded in Thailand which also means it becomes a responsible role.

What is it about the legend of Mae Nak that inspired you to write and direct a movie about her? 

The idea for Ghost of Mae Nak came about when I first went to Thailand to work as a cinematographer for the British feature film Butterfly Man (later I was awarded Best Cinematographer at 2003 Slamdunk Film Festival Park City for my photography). While in Bangkok , I became fascinated with Thai legends and Ghost stories. I heard about an actual shrine at Wat Mahabut in the Prakahnong area that is devoted to a famous female ghost legend called Mae Nak (Mother Nak). The Mae Nak shrine is visited by hundreds of Thai people everyday who ask for blessing and guidance. I became more fascinated with the Mae Nak legend and her tragic love story.

I also discovered that there had been many films about her over the last 50 years. I watched the definitive Mae Nak period film called Nang Nak directed by Nonzi Nimiburt. This film concluded with the ‘evil' spirit of Mae Nak being held captive in a piece of bone cut from her forehead by an Exorcist Monk, and the bone was lost in time. It was here that I was inspired to write my script and continue the Mae Nak story.

In Thailand Mae Nak is a legend and there are many stories about her. A lot of people believe the legend to be true and the Monk who exorcised her did exist. The legend is as famous to Thailand as Dracula or Jack The Ripper is to the West.

Why do you think Mae Nak is so revered by many Thai people?

Many Thai people revere Mae Nak, because they believe she once lived and her spirit still lives on. Couples, who go to her shrine with offerings, ask for a favor or guidance. One of the most common requests is for Mae Nak to bless them with conception of a child and protection during the pregnancy. This is because Mae Nak is seen as a guardian Mother–that is why she is known as Mae (Mother) Nak.

The story of Mae Nak is also a tragic love story and about love that transcends death. This is also valued and it was an inspiration for me to tell her story.

Which directors inspire you the most and why?

Many filmmakers inspire me. Sometimes it is because I've seen a film that has an impact on me and triggers an emotional or creative inspiration. Then films that are related to a script I am writing inspire me. Since I write horror stories I watch a lot of horror films for inspiration. I would say ‘horror director's' who  inspire me are ones who have created a style, a language or an atmosphere that has defined horror and set a horror precedent.

Ridely Scott's Alien, John Carpenter's Halloween, Tobe Hooper's Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Robert Wise's The Haunting, Dario Argento's Suspiria, Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. Sam Rami's Evil Dead. These are just a few.

While the Final Destination-styled denouements of several bad characters in the film are quite imaginative, two stand out in my mind: Mr. Tock's untimely run-in with fire and that nasty sheet glass incident with the seedy house attendant. Can you tell us more about the choreography and logistics involved in setting those terrific stunt effects up?

Mr.Tock's death by immolation or “Death by Chicken Barbecue” as we called it, took a lot of planning. It had three stages. First Tock falls backwards after seeing the Ghost, in to a large pan of boiling oil. Scolding and boiling he runs out into the path of a TukTuk taxi and is hit by it which sends him hurtling into a large chicken barbecue rack where he is impaled and bursts into flames.

First we had to design a Chicken barbecue big enough for a man to fall on. I came up with the concept and the Production designer drew up a blueprint that was then passed onto a metalworks company to physically build it. It was quite sophisticated because it had to work and rotate 8 chickens on metal skewers over a real flame. The skewers had to be ‘break-away' so the stuntman could fall on them. The effects company First Ideas created them. The stunt company Baan Rig provided a brave stuntman who would be completely set on fire. The fire stunt was handled with great care and caution with Hollywood supplied fire retardants and protective clothing and an ambulance on stand-by. It took a whole day to film that sequence at the actual market square, and it attracted a huge crowd who patiently watched and applauded.

A falling sheet of glass or “Death by Dissection” kills Mr. Ant, the seedy house attendant. This too required a lot of planning. We filmed this at the Tobacco Studios backlot where we built a street set lined with market stalls and traffic.

Nirun Changklang, the actor who played Ant, first had to visit the effects company First Ideas to have a full life-size cast of his entire body in latex made. The authentic looking body-cast was literally sliced in half from his head through to his groin and then joined back together with a hinge.

On set, Baan Rig wired up the two large sheets of glass (Plexiglas) to fall on cue. The life-size Ant figure was treated like a giant puppet with wirework to support him and control the split. Later the CGI effects company Digital Lab would enhance this with computer generated wire removal and digital blood. The scene also required a stunt vehicle and driver for the screeching bus, stunt extras to jump out of the way, a trained dog to pick up Ant's severed arm, and a bucket full of animal offal to add grossness to the “Grand Guignol” scene. The Ghost of Mae Nak DVD will feature my Director's Video Diary as an extra that will visually show how the death scenes were filmed as well as the day-to-day film making process.

What will be your next film in horror cinema?

I am writing an exciting new horror script set in the US in English language. I do have several other spec horror scripts I have written and I am also rewriting or fine-tuning them. This is something I always do with my scripts until they get made. I do have a new Thai/Asian horror script, but with Western characters and English language, it's a great idea. I am keen to develop my passion for horror/fantasy films. I have some great, original ideas, however I'm afraid I don't want to reveal anything about my scripts as yet, but I will keep you posted.

Finally, what question have you been dying to be asked, but no one has asked yet? And what's your answer?

I guess the question I would like to be asked is to describe the type of writer/director I am?

As a writer/director, I feel I am drawn to explore darker stories with adult themes in the horror and fantasy film genre. As a writer I love researching the subject for a new script. I become possessed with wanting to know as much as I can about the subject. This involves reading biographies, historical literature, or any related source of information I can acquire. I also watch a lot of films or documentaries, especially horror based, as I mainly write horror. Writing a script takes a lot of energy and requires a strict discipline but can be very exhilarating.

As a Director, I feel I am a well-organized, calm director, with plenty of planning, but I also like to allow for the unpredictable ‘cinematic' moments. I have loved horror films from an early age and aspire to direct a horror film that would become a classic. Some of my favorites are; The Changeling , Stir Of Echoes , The Shinning, The Exorcist, Suspiria, The Haunting, Candy Man, Final Destination, and The Omen.

Finally, I would like to thank Zombos' Closet for showing interest in the Ghost of Mae Nak and myself as writer and director. I would like to thank the fans of Ghost of Mae Nak. I appreciate your support. And for those who have not seen it, then I hope you will give the GHOST a chance and allow yourself to be taken on a ghostly thrill in Bangkok, Thailand and discover a true Thai legend.

Interview: LovecraCKed’s Elias Talks

/ Movies (Indie) / Leave a Comment

Lovecrackedmain3_1
Biff Juggernaut Production’s Elias steps into the closet to talk about himself and about his film, LovecraCKed! The Movie. Taking nine aspiring and very independent directors, combining them with a loose theme of Lovecraftian shenanigans, and looping it together with a slightly unpolished reporter just trying to do a story can be quite a challenge.

What turned you on to the horror scene?

When I was a teenager I got a job at a movie theater where I became friends with an extremely talented fellow by the name of Chad Bernhard who is also the frontman for the band,
THINGS OUTSIDE THE SKIN, and a frequent collaborator on BiFF JUGGERNAUT productions. He also was and continues to be a raving horror nut, and he introduced me to the likes of Carpenter, Raimi, Jackson, and Romero to name a few. It didn’t take long before I was completely suckered in.

Which horror films are your favorites and why?

“Dead Alive”, “Dawn of the Dead” (’78), “The Fly” (’86), “The Thing” (’82), “The Haunting” (’63), “Audition”, “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” (’74), “Twitch of the Death Nerve”… Those are a few that come to mind.

Dead Alive” is just a wonderfully entertaining film that never seems to grow old for me. The orchestration of that flick is just flawless and often mind boggling. It’s really amazing what Jackson did with such a low budget. No one else can make films on such a large scale with such a low budget so effectively, and he’s incredibly versatile, a true master of his medium who’s always expanding.

Romero’s “Dawn of the Dead” is my favorite of that series so far. Such a great setup with such strong characters and underlying social commentary. Cronenberg’s “Fly” chronicles a kind of social and human disintegration, the pursuit of knowledge to find only destruction, despair and madness.

The setting and setup of Carpenter’s “The Thing” make for great conflict and suspense, and this combined with a great ensemble cast and some of the coolest special fx ever put to film make for an extremely memorable experience. Robert Wise’s orginal “Haunting” for me is all about atmosphere and doing more with less.

The only films I think have ever come close to capturing the eerie otherworldly suspense generated by that flick are “The Woman in Black” and “The Mothman Prophecies” and “The Exorcism of Emily Rose” – all great flicks in my opinion. Miike’s Audition lured me in and left me with a lasting feeling of dread after viewing it, and few films have ever done that.

The “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” – need I say more? For me, it still remains one of the most effective and chilling horror films ever made. Love the atmosphere of that film… the sounds, the claustrophobic, deathlike feeling of that house… extremely creepy.

I like how they build slowly up to Leatherface and then you have that unforgettable intro… and the run through the woods… that whole f**ked up family slowly revealed to us… Yes I am a big fan of that flick! I can’t say the remake retained many of the qualities that made the original so strong, it really fell short by a lot, to say the least. Perhaps the prequel will be a step up, but I’m not holding my breath.

I’ve nothing against remakes, but it’s a shame when they get churned out without any real finesse or vision. But then that’s just the studios trying to cash in, so its nothing one shouldn’t expect in the end. I’ll keep looking out for the few that always set themselves apart. Lastly, “Twitch of the Death Nerve” from the master Mario Bava. The prototype for the modern slasher film wrapped in the inky black cloak of Giallo. Brutal deaths, masterful cinematography, mystery, suspense, and a wicked ending. Also love Bava’s little seen, posthumously completed “Rabid Dogs”.

Speaking of directors, which directors influence you the most?

I’d say David Cronenberg, Peter Jackson, Kim Ki-Duk, Takashi Miike and Shinya Tsukamoto, Michael Haeneke, the boys of “Monty Python” and the boys of “South Park”. It’s hard to say exactly how they influence, but they all have had their impact, and continue to do so.

Certainly the sense of humor of “Monty Python” and “South Park” is very much akin to my own, and I take great inspiration in the style and scope of their satire. With the other filmmakers it’s similar. I find fascination with the subjects they cover and how they each tell the story and communicate their ideas to the audience. Seeing all these various visions realized and feeling their effect on me as a viewer and a creative expressive person myself provides me with inspiration and helps fuel and drive my own ideas, thoughts, creations. They all help to set the stage for the next generation and they have set the bar high.

What is it like to conceive, produce, and promote an independent film?

Firstly let me just say that it’s one of the most incredibly euphoric, miserable rewarding, mind-numbing, inspiring, physically exhausting, energizing and exciting things I can think of. Perhaps it’s a little like having a baby and then raising it (at
least I imagine so;), though on a generally smaller scale of time. It’s exhausting, painful and unbelievably fulfilling. You live with this developing film in your head for months and months, writing it out and getting others points of view. You settle on a draft of the script and try to prepare adequately for the production through rigorous task of pre-production planning, and then finally free yourself from this and make a go for it with Production.

On set, on location with what little crew you have, trying to let the script/story guide you and not the other way around. Every inch is often a battle of stamina, will and mind over little finance. You learn to compromise when you have to, and try to know when it’s the right time to do so, and when it’s not. You have to hook into your actors and crew and let the thoughts and ideas flow between everyone, and then get everyone (yourself included) on the same path to the same vision.

You finally wrap and enter the realm of postproduction where films are ruined and reinvented… and you sort it out with feedback from others not so entrenched in the process. You enter the promotional state and realize with a shock (if it’s your first time) that you have entered a realm from which your primitive creative-minded brain desperately wants to escape from.

Nevertheless, you chain unwilling brain to the task at hand and set forth to spread the word of your film through every outlet available to you again and again and again… Then finally when you’ve given it your best, you let the flick go and float on its own, and then you start the next project.

How did you get your start in the film business?

I started out acting and writing when I was a teenager and expanded into filmmaking when I was 19. I moved to NY a couple times: first to pursue acting and later to study film at the School of Visual Arts, where I graduated in 2000. That’s the boring answer.

I got started ultimately because of a strong desire to express myself and in turn bring about reactions from others. To make people think, laugh, cry, shriek, gasp, giggle, and feel queezy! To fill brains with all sorts of buzzing and zapping sensations! Thanks for listening – and for watching, too! Thanks to Zombos Closet of Horror Blog for the forum and for all their support of independent horror! (ZC Note: thank you, it’s our pleasure, and that of our readers.)

What is it about Lovecraft’s work that inspired you to do LovecraCKed?

I’ve admired Lovecraft’s stories for many years. I’d planned to do a feature adaptation of one of them a few years back, but that fell through. The running doc/spoof narrative of “LovecraCked! The Movie” was inspired by the fact that hardly anyone I ever spoke to about Lovecraft ever knew who he was unless they were a genre fan. The average person usually had never heard of him.

Considering this and all the influence he’s had on modern day horror film and fiction, it seemed like a subject ripe for parody. Later, after most of the doc/spoof was shot, I decided to expand the whole project into a feature length anthology, and open it up to other filmmakers.

Nine directors were involved, each directing their segment of LovecraCKed. What were the challenges you faced, both as writer and overall director for your film, when working with such diverse talent?

The 9 segments/shorts were all created independently of one another by different filmmakers. I was not involved directly in these productions. My main task was the selection and organization of the films for the anthology, and in a few instances, some editing as well. The big challenge was to find the films and filmmakers and assemble an anthology that worked as well as possible.

What production challenges did you face in bringing LovecraCKed to completion?

Really just putting together the whole project and seeing it through to completion. I spent an unhealthy amount of time hunched over my keyboard typing madly and sleepily! Obtaining the necessary releases, and making a lot of format conversions also took some time.

There were many little details to deal with, none of which are likely very interesting, but extremely time consuming and brain-mashing nonetheless. Promoting the film has also been a lot of work – probably as much as putting it all together… and I’m still promoting as we speak! I’ve become a movie whore, I tell you!!!

What future projects are you working on?

Well promoting this one is taking up most of my time right now, but I have plans to participate in another anthology project, which is being put together by one of the other filmmakers, Justin Powers. I also have an extra incomplete segment that I shot for “LovecraCked! The Movie” as a backup, which is crying out to be included in an extended edition of the flick. I’d like to get rolling on a new feature soon as well, it’s just a matter of what fits best financially, creatively, etc.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
The Beginning (2006)

/ Movies (Horror) / 1 Comment

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie posterZombos Says: Very Good

In the cinema of the helpless, Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning reaches a new benchmark in unrelenting, stinking-bloody-abattoir-of-pain, horror. I winced at the slimy grimy blood-soaked chaos in Speak No Evil; and I squirmed in my seat during the guest suite scenes in Hostel. But I became physically ill while watching the particularly nightmarish scene in the basement, where Leatherface methodically, silently, carves a Thanksgiving turkey–except it was not a turkey he was carving up and it wasn’t a day to be thankful for.

Perhaps the grainy hand-held camera scenes and tight close-ups in the film made me a little queasy to begin with. Or perhaps it was the way the camera lingers while dark, syrupy blood pours from mangled bodies, soaking into the ground, into the carpeting. I wondered how they were going to get those stains out of the carpet. They are the Hewitt family; an insane bunch of cannibalistic rednecks always playing with their dinner. I wondered if they cared about the stains at all.

Tcmtb06

It is 1969. Two friends are taking one long, slow trip to the war in Vietnam by way of Texas. Along for the ride are their girlfriends, a few desires, and impending doom. The Hewitt family has been going through a series of setbacks as their town and way of life disintegrates around them. The meat packing plant, the town’s primary source of jobs is shut down and townsfolk have nowhere else to go but away. The Hewitts refuse to leave, and young–and really huge for his age–Tommy (Andrew Bryniarski), their disfigured and misfit adopted son, refuses to stop pounding and slicing meat, whether bovine or two-legged kind.

When told he has to leave the meat packing plant, he expresses his unhappiness by wielding a sledge hammer in a brutal scene of shattered bones, muscle, and skull. Young Tommy has found a new hobby.

Tcmtb03His stepdad has found a new hobby also. Seems the last sheriff had to leave his position rather suddenly, so Hoyt takes a fancy to the badge–after he cleans the blood off it. R. Lee Ermey plays Hoyt Hewitt with such malicious evil glee he  steals the movie. Armed with a shotgun, badge, and dark sunglasses, he’s one determined patriarch who needs to put food on the table. After that nasty business in Korea that kept him alive when food was scarce, he and Tommy seem to be a match made in hell for getting that food.

In a text book example of why you should never take your eyes off the road while driving at high speed when being chased by a gun-toting biker chick, both the Vietnam-bound friends and their girlfriends are brought to the attention of Sheriff Hoyt. He takes them home to meet the family.

The truly scary thing about dysfunctional families in horror films is that they always function well together–in that insane, clannish us against them kind of way. Mama Hewitt and Uncle Monty (Terrence Evans) go along with Hoyt and Tommy. When bodies and body pieces start piling up, they just make soup and lots of it. Poor Uncle Monty is the only one to get his comeuppance in a sudden and graphically grotesque chainsaw game of long and short, but this is the prequel, of course, to New Line Cinema’s 2003 version of Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Tcmtb04 In Tobe Hooper’s 1974 film that helped usher in the slasher sub-genre, the battle between the cannibalistic clan and their prospective victims was shown mostly by implication and without explicit gore. It was the non-stop, frenetic cat and mouse pacing that shifted the genre into a new direction. In Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, the frenetic cat and mouse pacing is here, but now combined with lingering and quite disturbing scenes of very explicit gore. If it’s dead, it’s red: if it’s not dead, it’s also red. Lots of red here, oozing all over the place. According to Wikipedia, 17 scenes were cut from the final film to drop it from NC-17 to R. I think they missed a few.

A key scene in the 1974 film, which is not duplicated in the 2003 remake is included here: the family get-together for dinner. It is a macabre tableau where Mama Hewitt feeds Uncle Monty with a spoon, and one unconscious victim, one victim that’s lost her mind–along with most of her teeth–and another victim have to watch their friends get bouillabaissed; only this time it is not played with black humor. Nothing in this film is played with black humor.

Tcmtb02

Being the beginning of Leatherface, we get to see Tommy putting on his new face–graphically. The squishing ripping sounds are quite vibrant. His first use of the chainsaw is also depicted with verve.

The ominous score highlights the mayhem and the acting is top-notch, feeding off R. Lee Ermey’s sadistic Sheriff Hoyt. If you buy popcorn, I recommend you eat it before sitting down. You won’t touch it while watching this film. You will also never ever be able to listen to another rendition of “Hush Little Baby, Don’t You Cry” without cringing.

The Last Broadcast (1998)

/ Movies (Indie) / Leave a Comment

The Last Broadcast

Zombos Says: Very Good

Is the following fact or fiction? Two young movie makers use a desktop PC and less than nine hundred dollars to produce the first all-digital documentary-styled horror film in 1998?

It’s fact. A few months before The Blair Witch Project brought documentary style horror to the forefront, The Last Broadcast presented a chilling account of three bloody murders that happened one cold night in the Pine Barrens of New Jersey. Beginning as a fictitious documentary about the Jersey Devil Murders using salvaged video footage, interviews, and police evidence, the film’s twist ending reveals the real murderer–or does it?

Using Photoshop to enhance scenes, consumer-grade video recorders, and lots of post-production doctoring on a desktop PC, Stefan Avalos and Lance Weiler digitally composed their thriller using mostly non-actors, Weiler’s mom, and anything not nailed down. The final product is an eerie, slow-building, story that takes a sudden left turn to reveal the true murderer. According to the audio commentary on the DVD, seven clues are in the film pointing to the murderer. I missed all seven.

Technology plays an important part within the film itself, first as visual and auditory information is manipulated to create the pseudo-documentary structure of the film, and then as impetus for the events within it.

 

The film begins as a probing documentary by director David Leigh (played with aplomb by David Beard), who asks the question, “Did Jim Suerd commit the murders?” The profile of Suerd–troubled childhood, a loner, and computer nerd fascinated by the Internet and magic tricks–points to an unstable individual who may be capable of cold-blooded murder. But the film leaves you wondering who the documentary was really about.

Fact or Fiction is a public-access cable show hosted by two it’s-always-Saturday hosts (think Wayne’s World here)–Avkast and Wheeler, who are searching for a way to keep their show on the air (although they do sell a lot of t-shirts). Initially a kitschy hit about two slackers discussing weird stuff, the topics are getting stale and its popularity is waning.

Looking for any hook to bring back viewers, the hosts turn to Internet Relay Chat so viewers can send suggestions for what the show should investigate next. One suggestion, to do a live show from the Pine Barrens of Southern New Jersey in search of the Jersey Devil, the legendary creature who inspired the name of the New Jersey Devils ice hockey team, intrigues the show’s hosts, and soon has them assembling a crew to investigate.

The crew is comprised of Jim Suerd, a fan of the show and self-professed psychic, and Rein Clackin, audio technician. Suerd is the odd one–oddest one–of the bunch. He’s not quite fully in the here and now. Avkast and Wheeler use him as a psychic bloodhound to lead them deep into the woods of the Pine Barrens in search of the best spot to see the Jersey Devil.

As the documentary unfolds, a reenactment of the trip is shown using video footage shot by Avkast and Wheeler: they recruit the team members and focus on Suerd, who goes into a psychic fit. As the team assembles and preparations are made, the documentary moves to the fifteen hours of recovered footage from the ill-fated night in the woods. In the now familiar cinema verite style of shaky close-ups, scene ambiguity, and quick-cut action snippets, Avkast, Wheeler, Suerd and Clackin are shown trying to find a suitable location for camp, bitching about this or that, and suddenly finding they are not alone in the very cold, very dark Pine Barrens.

Enough is shown or intimated to give you a nice creepy feeling. Throughout it all, director David Leigh’s stoic voice intones the police evidence for arresting and convicting Suerd, the lone survivor, then asks questions about the assumed guilt of Jim Suerd. Just when you think the answers are going to remain unclear, the film shifts from documentary perspective to third-person, and follows the restoration of a critical piece of video that may show the killer’s face, and the dedicated forensic video technician working to make it happen. The denouement leaves no doubt as to who the killer is. In a sudden and very brutal scene the killer is revealed.

What stands out are the performances by the non-actors involved, especially Weiler’s mom. They do a credible job creating an air of authenticity for the documentary. The slow pacing is mitigated by the interesting characters, their backstories, and the shift from the documentary investigating Suerd to the reenactment of the trip, then to the recovered video footage. The twist ending, in both its shift in perspective and sudden revelation, is a bold move. The final scene returns us to the Pine Barrens and leaves you with uncertainty and bewilderment. The Last Broadcast is a worthy entry in the cinema of horror.

The Heretic DVD:

Three short featurettes stand out in particular: the Pre-production, Post-production, and Distribution discussions by Avalos and Weiler are lively and enlightening. In Pre-production, they talk about their discovery of the actor to play Suerd (Jim Seward) in the aisle of a video store, and how they lighted scenes using Chinese Lanterns to create a soft light that could be manipulated according to the wattage used. In Post-production, they discuss their extensive use of Photoshop to add gore effects to scenes, and how they composed the various police evidence used in the documentary on their PC. In Distribution, a very interesting discussion of how they fought to remain purely digital presages the current state of digital film distribution.

Two audio commentaries, one from 1998 and another for this release add to a well thought out presentation, as well as an entertaining mini-comic.

Chindi Remembers Charles Grant

/ Main / Leave a Comment

West Nelson (aka Chindi to Zombos Closet readers) shares his thoughts on the passing of horror and science-fiction author Charles Grant. Thanks West.   

Charlesgrant

We said good-bye to Charles Grant on Thursday. You can read his obituary here and here, but I’d like to talk about the first time I met him. It was about 10 years ago and I’d been corresponding with his wife, Kathy Ptacek, for some time. She kindly invited me to a party they were having for his 100th book. It was a weekend long affair, but I couldn’t make it on that Friday. I do recall that we were all watching an episode of the X-Files that Friday night. When I saw Charlie’s name on a list of suspects that Mulder was reading, I called Kathy and Charlie to tell them. Of course they’d seen it and the celebratory noise in the background made me regret choosing work over fun.

That night I prepared a couple of pans of spicy sesame noodles with shrimp and scallops and in the morning, I loaded it all up in the car and drove to Newton, NJ. The minute I arrived, I was welcomed with open arms. Not just by Kathy and Charlie, but by their community of friends as well. At some point, I mentioned to Charlie that his work had a Dickensian touch to it. The characters you got to caring about the most were the ones who were doomed, in particular the children. He rather enjoyed that. Later, when discussing his book, Jackals, I stated that it reminded me of the National Geographic film, Eternal Enemies: Lions And Hyenas. He fairly leaped into the air and said he got the idea for the book from that video. We riffed on the name the researchers (Derek and Beverly Joubert) gave the male of the pride. Ntchwaidumela which means “He who greets with fire”. In fact, whenever we’d float past one another that night, we would bow to each other and say “Ntchwaidumela” in a most formal tone.

As for my spicy sesame noodles, they were a hit. Charlie made me promise to send the recipe which I gladly did. Come to think of it, he’s the only person to whom I’ve ever given it.

When the blackout of 2003 occurred, I was in the midst of reading one of his Oxrun collections. Rather than wait for the lights to come on, I settled onto a couch and turned on a flashlight. I finished the book that night and when I went to sleep I had a nightmare I hadn’t had in years. I emailed Charlie about it and told him that I’d decided to finally write it all down. He wrote back and told me that he’d like to see it when I finished it. Sadly, I let life get in the way and I never did finish it.

Years ago, Charlie put out a small print magazine called Haggis. It was a way for his fans to get a glimpse into what was going on behind the scenes of his work. There was also a great deal of fan participation. He organized a virtual wrestling federation. We had to come up with our own characters. Mine was Loup Garou, the werewolf. I described him as George “The Animal” Steele with serious dental issues. Loup was quite tame as long as he was leashed. In truth, I’d forgotten about it until Jet Li’s Unleashed came out. Charlie was kind enough to email me to ask if I’d had anything to do with it.

People like Charlie Grant are never fully appreciated by most of us while they are here. I regret getting so caught up in my own life that I couldn’t take a day to see him when he took ill. “There’s always next weekend”, I kept telling myself. If we are to learn anything from his passing, it should be that we must cherish our friends and family while they’re here. Email and web communities are one thing, but they cannot replace real face to face encounters. It is small consolation that his funeral and the following reception were just the kind of gathering that he would have enjoyed.

We’ll miss you, Charlie. Thanks for everything.

Left In Darkness (2006)
Where’s the Light?

/ Movies (Bad) / 1 Comment

Left In darkness Zombos Says: Fair

Horror fans are intimate with death. Whether sudden or prolonged, subtle or explicit, depicted in hyper-realistic or preternatural artistry, the intention or completion of death is the modus operandi of all horror movies. Often taken to absurd
extremes, it is parodied, glorified, exemplified, and gorified. Sometimes theology is tossed into this terminal stew of misery and body parts. Not much, as that would hold down the body count while characters go through annoying self-reflective dialogs, delaying all the spouting-blood action with cumbersome discussions about life and death, heaven and hell, and why me?

Jason, put down that head! Let’s think about all this! or Freddy, cut that out—no, not like that! That’s not how we communicate. I mean you need to wait until I discuss the raison d’etre of your existence juxtaposed with my hacked-up dead friends—oh, and Tommy, too, who I never liked that much anyway.

Such character introspection in a horror movie tends to muck-up the story and require mental
gymnastics today’s audiences may not be in shape for. It is easier to show death than to explore its boundaries. No lengthy expositions, just nifty death
throes and screams and body parts scattered aplenty. So when a horror movie brings death in close proximity to religious themes such as Heaven and Hell,
otherwise collectively known as ‘the afterlife,’ it needs to justify its story between just enough horrifying action and just enough theological surmising to
move it along in an entertaining, thought-provoking manner.

Left in Darkness fails to live up to this potential. Part of me finds its premise annoying: a devout young woman, Celia (Monica Keena), dies and must find heaven’s entrance before her limbo sanctuary is overrun by damnation. Dying is hard enough. To be forced into playing heaven, heaven, where the hell is heaven, like an Amazing Race
episode with a detour of soul-eating demons wanting to suck you dry, shoots for a target of horror story convenience sans sense. However, there’s also a part of me that finds it an interesting dogmatic challenge to encompass it onscreen with sufficient suspense, terror, and ecclesiastical justification to warrant this wicked situation.

It could make for one hell of a horror movie, especially if you’re an atheist.

But the pivotal question almost every horror movie ignores is where’s God in all this? And this movie ignores that question, too.

Riddle me this, horror fan: Why is it in every horror movie where you have demons and devils in the game, God’s always on the sidelines while the Devil’s players are hot in the game?

God drops a few cryptic clues to help her, but I’d be screaming for brawny angels with flaming swords instead. And why is it HER battle?

Celia is an unhappy dead person. In flashback we see her in a cemetery reluctantly visiting her deceased mother who died giving birth to her. Her grandfather Joe (Tim Thomerson) is with her. He raises her after her dad abandons her. Joe asks her to talk to her mom, but she refuses and runs away, right into oncoming traffic. She is saved
from premature death by an invisible boy named Donovan (David Anders). He acts like a protecting angel keeping her safe most of her life.

On her twenty-first birthday, Celia joins a friend for a party at the local frat house. Frat boys spike her drink and rape her unconscious body. Too much of the
drug is used and she dies from an overdose. She wakes up, realizes she’s dead, and now must search for a way into heaven. Clumsy jump-cuts and fast-motion scenes
don’t aid her struggle and fail to hide lapses in story logic and budgetary shortfalls. Donovan, her childhood savior appears. So does Joe. But Joe, after
explaining the game’s rules to her, turns into a demon. Donovan tells her Joe’s soul has been eaten by a demon who digested all of Joe’s memories and feelings.
He explains the frat house in the netherworld she’s now in is her sanctuary until 2am. After that, the soul-eating demons can enter and gobble her up. How
or why Joe became a demon is not explained.

At least in Beetle Juice the Maitlands get an Afterlife Handbook. Celia has to wing it without even Cliffs Notes. Donovan is not much help either. He pressures her to
do what he wants. And why she only has until 2am to find the physical doorway, stairway, or closet to heaven is not clear. Why she even needs to go through all this trouble is not explained. She’s been a good girl.

Why does God need her to play detective?

Donovan does help her fight soul-eaters while she makes up her mind whether to trust him or not. She lets him into the frat house sanctuary—he couldn’t enter until she okayed it—and he tells her she needs to go to the basement to save herself.

Sure, why not? The DARK basement.

How dumb do the writers think we are? If this is their idea of foreshadowing, it’s done with a sledgehammer.

The man who caused her death commits suicide and joins her in the sanctuary. The natural tension such a meeting would generate is not explored here. Instead, it’s more like a Ghost Whisperer episode: metaphysical connotations, emotional confrontations, and appropriate dialog simply don’t apply.

The spirits of her grandfather and mom pop in and out to offer more cryptic clues to help her find heaven’s entrance and test her stress level telling her to hurry up, time’s
running out. Her sanctuary starts winking out here and there, letting soul-eaters in. Any potential tension or suspense during all this is never nail-biting because Steven Monroe’s pacing is like a TV movie with scenes timed for commercial breaks.

Boil it all down to the bone and it’s about Celia making a choice.

She needs to listen to her grandfather, or her mom, or her guardian angel, or the voice within herself. Why she needs to do this is never explored. At least if she was
an atheist I could relish the irony of her situation.

Like the afterlife, this movie is a complete mystery. Just not a good one.