Delayed Reaction: The Mist

Premise: A potentially deadly mist comes to a remote lake town, trapping people inside a grocery store and forcing them to talk philosophy.

 

OK, so maybe the philosophy part wasn't in the pitch. It sure is a big part of the movie though.

 

Before The Mist, Frank Darabont's history with Stephen King adaptations was unimpeachable. The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile were both highly respected and got Oscar attention. The Mist was an attempt to move fully into King's more supernatural stories and that really didn't work. What's funny though is how much of The Mist Darabont took (including cast) to The Walking Dead. Both end up being discussions on what makes and breaks a society. It examines how people will unite to fight a common enemy or infight to spell their own doom. The Walking Dead just does it more entertainingly. And, don't forget that Darabont ended up leaving the show during that long stint on the farm in the second season. He has ideas for this kind of story but can't figure out how exactly to execute them.

 

I like the idea of the mist itself. It literalizes the threat of the unknown. On paper, I like of idea of people trapped in a place discussing their next action. Where it lost me was all the attempts to answer what's out there. It's a metaphor anyway, so go ahead and leave it that way. There's something in the mist that is dangerous. We don't know what happens when they go out there. Maybe some survive, but should you risk it? That's all way scarier than flying beasts being out there. The CGI on those have aged pretty poorly too. 2007 was around the peak of Hollywood thinking they didn't need to use any practical effects.

 

Also, the religion stuff is garbage. I didn't buy how quickly and strongly so many people were converted. The messaging wasn't at all subtle. This movie was over 2 hours. It would've been better served to cut all that stuff out, be 90 minutes long, and focus only on the mystery of what's out there and how to survive it.

 

The gut punch at the end was ugly. It was a much grimmer tone than the rest of the movie. The emotional response it got from me wasn't deserved.

 

I imagine a lot of my problems are with the source material, since Stephen King famously has trouble with endings. I don't care whose fault it is though. This movie drags in the middle and explains way too much.

 

Verdict: Strongly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Vacancy

Premise: A lost couple get a room at a remote hotel where they are then terrorized by the owners.

 

This is a really clean setup for a horror movie. Kate Beckinsale and Luke Wilson are lost after taking a shortcut. Pretty quickly they end up at the hotel for the night. Right away, they discover the murder tapes and realize they are in danger. This is a familiar kind of movie, and I always have one question that needs to have a satisfying answer: Why don't they just run away?

 

The movie does some of the work needed to answer that. The car is broken. They don't know the area. It seems decently remote. It all takes them somewhat by surprise. Where it loses me is here. As soon as I see murder tapes that take place in my room, I'm leaving. There's a road. It eventually gets to the highway. There's brush by the road to stay concealed until morning. It's not the best plan, but it seems obvious. At a certain point, I do understand why Beckinsale and Wilson can't run away anymore. Before they reach that point though, I don't think the movie makes its case.

 

Otherwise, the movie has what you need. Beckinsale and Wilson are fine leads, although their bickering does get tedious. I love tunnels and secret paths. Local, remote motels really are scary places. The movie is delightfully short and to the point. I would've preferred less major studio glean on the production but they at least make a token effort to grime this thing up. There's a reason this movie is mostly forgotten. There are a lot of movies doing this thing better.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: The Other Lamb

Premise: A woman in a cult comes to be suspicious of her messiah’s claims of power.

 

I'm getting a little bored of cult movies. When was the last time one of these movies went in a surprising direction? Maybe The Endless. It's the same thing over and over. The leader is a con-man who uses his power to sleep with the young women. Don't get me wrong. I think that does happen, but I see the same kind of cult story again and again. The Other Lamb is a decent movie. The horror undertones are a nice addition, but I could write a lot of the movie 10 minutes in. Michel Huisman has greater claims of power than he can prove. He's divided his female-only followers into sisters and wives. Of course there will be a rebellion.

 

I have a number of questions about how this cult came to be. How long has it been going? Huisman is still in his 30s when this came out, so it couldn't be that long. He's fully brainwashed these women though. It's not possible for Raffey Cassidy to be his daughter, right? And how well do the sisters actually remember the real world? I'm not convinced that Huisman could've put together a cult this strong. More followers would've questioned things earlier. And that gets it the way of the rest of my enjoyment of the movie.

 

As I said though, I do like how it's a soft-horror movie. It's more bleak than scary. Raffey Cassidy has some unsettling visions. There's a grimness to seeing the dead bodies unsentimentally laid out or floating. I like that it's not constantly trying to force a response from the audience with a jump scare. I do think it fails to move from bleak to creepy though, which is a missed opportunity.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: At the Devil's Door

Premise: A woman investigates the sudden death of her sister and how it's connected to a suicide nearly 20 years earlier with satanic undertones.

 

The core idea of this movie is excellent and the structure is delightfully unexpected. It's basically broken into three chapters with the lead character changing. That, mixed with some time-hopping made it difficult to stay on my feet. I like that the movie never lets me feel settled. It explains just enough to get the point across but not enough to take away the creepiness. It's a story of an evil force that is trying to be born. It can shift hosts as needed, but it does rely on the host to carry it to full term. That's badass. I really love the end when Naya Rivera goes to the 6-year-old and tells it "I know you're a demon" then tries to kill it. It's even better that she's unable to and that's how it ends.

 

Despite the fun premise, some of the execution was a little off. I wished it would've leaned even more into the creepy tone, like an Oz Perkins movie (Gretel & Hansel, I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House). I appreciate that it doesn't over-rely on jump scares, but they aren't replaced with much else.

 

I didn't realize this was from the same director as The Pact, but it makes sense. Both had a really wicked idea at the center and struggled to do much with it. They even have titles that don't make that much sense. I suppose At the Devil's Door works a little better for this movie. Also similar to The Pact, this movie does just enough right to make me curious to see what else this director does next*.

 

*After writing this, I realized he made The Prodigy which I also watched recently. That was not intentional. And, I wasn't crazy about that movie. Perhaps the spell is broken.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Saint Maud

Premise: A home-care nurse and recent Catholic convert has a few crazy ideas.

 

This movie is very much "my jam". It's atmospheric and sometimes visual horror more than edited and scored horror (i.e., jump scares). It even has some Under the Skin vibes to it with the general bleakness. It's not as bluntly inaccessible as Under the Skin though, which is nice. As much as I love Under the Skin, you have to work hard to watch that.

 

I like Saint Maud's take on how religion can be the last refuge of the desperate. Regardless of your personal views on religion, we can all agree that Maud came to Catholicism the wrong way, and it only intensifies her delusions. It helps explain both her intensity and general inability to fit in the real world. Morfydd Clark plays all that really well. Jennifer Ehle is an ideal counter-point to her. Ehle is great at characters with "withering" in the description.

 

Clark's visions and perceptions give the movie a nice mystery, wondering scene-to-scene what exactly is real. It allows the film to dabble in things like body horror without going to extreme into them. Instead of jump scares, the movie has moments when Maud's delusions give way to reality. Something like that closing shot, which is earned and doesn't feel cheap at all.

 

Verdict: Strongly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Sleepaway Camp

Premise: A series of mysterious murders happen at a camp, but it's not Friday the 13th.

 

I struggle with this movie. It's not my favorite flavor of horror at all. Slashers aren't my go-to horror genre. And, whatever my Mendoza line for bad acting in horror movies is, Sleepaway Camp is on the wrong side of it. This acting is really dreadful in many places. You could argue that it's campy, but camp doesn't appeal to me much either. Still, there are a few things the movie does very right. It's got some inventive kills. It's rather transgressive and regressive at the same time. The twist ending is very successful as a surprise. I'm still untangling what it's saying about trans people and becoming serial killers. Whatever it is, it's not the most elegant message.

 

Regardless, I'm trying to increase my exposure to horror film history, and this is a quiet essential of the mid-80s. When looking at any era, it's important to look at the marquee movies, but it's just as important to see the movies that push up against the trend. Sleepaway Camp does exactly that. While not wholly successful, it looks for a fresh, boundary-pushing way to expand the slasher genre. If nothing else, that's pretty cool.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: The Ruins

Premise: A group of friends visit ruins while on a trip in Mexico and, well, discover why the locals don't go there.

 

I swear I'll get to the actual movie in a moment. First, I want to point out a perfect example of why it's so difficult to get horror recommendations. In the Wikipedia Critical Response for this section, it includes the following two takes on the movie.

• The Rotten Tomatoes consensus is "Despite a solid cast and truly frightening source material, The Ruins founders, thanks to a weak script and an excess of gore."
• The James Beradinelli review says "The Ruins does what a good psychological horror movie should do: rely on tension rather than gore to achieve its aims."

So, The Ruins is both too gory and praised for how it doesn't rely on gore? You don't really see that in other genres. Goodfellas is either violent to a fault or uses violence to make a point. Chris Nolan movies are either overwritten or tightly constructed. It's not like comedies get criticized for having too much slapstick by some then praised by others for how they don't use slapstick. I wish there was a way to weight horror takes going in based on a person's tolerance for common horror elements. Like, if a person rates as a 2 out of 10 for found footage, I know to level-set their Paranormal Activity take. Or if a person is 9/10 for gore, perhaps I should be cautious about that Saw IV rave.

 

OK. Onto the movie. Here's my level-setting going in this movie. Before I even watch it, this is what I know and what I can assume about it as a result. It's a major studio (Paramount) horror movie. It has recognizable stars. I should expect a certain amount of polish on the movie. It'll rely more on visual effects, since they have the money for it. It has an R-rating, which indicates a higher level of freedom. Had it been PG-13, they'd have to more carefully consider the structure of the scares and level or violence. It's really hard (but not impossible) to do your best work in horror with that looming over you. First time director and a journeyman writer, so probably not much of a vision and little ability to fight studio notes.

 

Put that together, and I'm expecting acting that will be able to keep me engaged, even when not much is happening. There will be a couple good horror ideas that they'll probably overuse. I'll like it while being aware of ways that they could've made it more memorable. And that's pretty much what I did get from this movie.

 

Jena Malone and Shawn Ashmore* are ideal 2008 stars. Jonathan Tucker does have resting villain face which messed with me. I kept waiting for him to be more of a dick. He's fine though. There's always gotta be a Laura Ramsey in these too: someone who is perfectly fine but this marks the high point in her career. I really like the idea and visuals of the vines overtaking them. It turns out to be one trick the filmmakers overuse rather than advance, but it works. I'm sure someone could explain to me that this is exploitative of Mayan culture. I was fine with it though.

 

I think the lasting impact of The Ruins will be that it's a movie people confuse with The Descent but aren't that upset when they realize they are watching the wrong one. Overall, there's worse fates for a movie.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Await Further Instructions

Premise: A family wakes up on Christmas morning with all the exits to the house blocked off by some mysterious wall and instructions on their TV to guide them.

 

Introductory Note: It unsettles me whenever I talk about a movie with no Wikipedia page. It makes me second guess how well I remember the movie. And, in general, I sort of rely on Wikipedia to be smarter than me on all things. If a movie isn't on Wikipedia, maybe I'm going too indie with my movies.

 

Black Mirror sure has dominated this discussion, huh? My first thought coming away from this movie was "this would've made a great Black Mirror episode". For several years, that show has been the authority on high premise stories about technology's influence over people. I feel bad for anyone else working in that space fighting for recognition. I'm sure it annoys the filmmakers behind Await Further Instructions to see everyone credit Black Mirror for this movie. I know I'm not helping.

 

As is, the movie is pretty good. I enjoy a good bottle movie: take a bunch of personalities, shake them up, then trap them in a room together. That's simple and effective filmmaking as long as it isn't used as a chance for characters to rotate giant monologues. Await Further Instructions is a killer idea. I'm not sure what I'd do in that situation. Probably panic and pass out. (I don't handle pressure well.) I enjoy a lot of the stuff in the movie about people being exposed for who they really are when you turn up the temperature on them.

 

My two concerns with the movie are how hard it hits its point and how things escalate in the last act. It hits the commentary of people submitting to authority a little too hard. The dogmatic way the father listens to the TV message is so extreme. A lot of people in that house act like a writer trying to make a point more than real people. The less the plot drives this kind of movie, the better it tends to be.

 

I guess the movie had to go somewhere by the end. I wish it would've been more about the family tearing each other apart than the mysterious thing enveloping the house taking over. It transitioned the film from unsettling in its ambiguity to more straight-forwardly scary. Think about it. Wouldn't it be so much creepier if the only intervention was the exits being blocked and the TV giving instructions, then it all goes away when everyone - or maybe all but one - are dead? That then cuts to seeing the same thing happen in other houses. I know it's dumb to write the movie you wished something would be rather than talk about the movie itself, but that's just an example. I just with the writer and director had more faith in the premise's ability to scare people. It has enough of the interpersonal dynamics and mystery to be worth watching though.

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

Quick Reaction: I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang

It's funny how timely movies feel positively quaint after a few years. This movie actually caused quite a stir at the time. It's based on a true story and led to the release of many prisoners, including the man it's based on. That's pretty cool. Chain gangs are such a trope at this point though. The stories about them have gotten so much more interesting over time. And watching this, it's almost comical how simple this man's situation is. He's a young, handsome veteran who never got in trouble before. After he escapes, he turns into a model citizen and a pillar of the community. In 1932, just taking the stand that the movie does make it a challenge to get a greenlight at all. Now, making something so uncomplex wouldn't get made for the opposite reason: It's not risky enough. I'm not bagging on this movie that was made an entire John Williams ago. It's tracking the evolution of "message movies" in Hollywood. If this was what they were calling progressive in 1932, then it explains how something like The Jazz Singer could be a sensation five years earlier.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: The Prodigy

Premise: A young boy who is advanced beyond his years has a malevolent secret inside him.

 

There's this great episode of House about a sick genius teen who is a grade-A asshole. Like, he even makes House seem kind by comparison. Throughout the episode, you kind of assume that whatever's wrong with him is also affecting his personality. However, it turns out that it's not related. He's just a prick. And that ending is somehow darker than if he had just died.

 

What I'm trying to say is, why couldn't the kid in The Prodigy just suck? I got annoyed when I realized how many hoops the movie would jump through to avoid making the kid evil. I'm used to this. Demons and devils use children as vessels all the time in horror. The 90's had it right though with non-horror movies like Problem Child and The Good Son. Just make a kid evil.

 

That's my only thought on this movie. As I learned that the kid was just possessed by a dead serial killer, this got a lot less interesting. It absolved Taylor Schilling of any nature vs. nurture questions. It makes all of the kid's actions less menacing. And having such a bizarre explanation without it being a demonic possession feels less plausible.

 

Remember how cool it was in The Ring when you find out that Naomi Watts wasn't supposed to help Samara? Chase that feeling more.

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend