By One Line - Issue 3. Movies

OK then, today we have some movies to smear with poo-poo, as could dr. Martin Ssempa say.

Remember, here we have the same scale to check:

- definitely awesome but nothing to say

- matter of taste and controversial

- get the fuck out of here

Welcome to the Cinemarathon:

Altitude (2010)

XXI century brought us into the controversial state comparable with emotional, axiological and theleological tetraplegic paralysis while hanged in weightlessness. People of XXI century saw everything, heard everything and pretend to know everything so it becomes very hard (nearly impossible) to wonder them. The big amount of media also makes a contribution in this actually sad situation, so the chance to see something moreless uncommon and peculiar decreases day by day. So each successful attempt of such case arouses the more pleasure and interest; the dark side is difficulty to mine such film from annually made pile of homogenous cinematographic ore and distinguish it from boring and secondary brood. Of course in such genre you cannot hope to discover a New Guinea, but considering this event of facing moreless uncommon movie as a pleasing surprise could be really wise and useful deed.

“Altitude” is truly independent and maybe this factor has become the reason of its dissimilarity with anything. Because the plot writer has no demands dealing with audience or restrictions, he wrote anything for himself and thus avoided a lot of stamps that could appear here (although he couldn't avoid all of them). Starting as an interestingly (from technical point of view) even though merely low budget short story-about-teenagers-who-decided-to-go-somewhere-and-will-atone-for-that, narration turn things twisted. First, teenagers are going to trip somewhere by a small plane with one of them as a pilot, and second – the very atmosphere that I personally felt only in Stewart Gordon films. And this foretoken was a kind of true – the chthonic horror which is an imprescriptible attribute of Gordon’s films definitely has here a place to live and does its very horrifying deeds. The only drawbacks of this actually interesting attempt is relatively weak performing of actors, especially main; when girl at least tries to dissipate attention using her cute face and advanced mimics, the buddy is emotional as facial nerve paresis victim. Nevertheless, for an ending they have a little more freedom to express themselves and thus almost have drawn the final of movie. Almost. But even with their acting, the ending is still chilly and strong enough to even take a tear or two from an emotional overcharged schoolgirl. LIKE FUCKING ME.

As A Result: an additional proof that crowdfunding is a future of indie filmmaking

Watch It?: better yes, but not necessary

The Cabin in the Woods (2012)

You know, it is really rare case when the movie could really break the stub. For last years cinema industry had been choosing technologically intensive way of development, constantly improving shooting technologies, special effects and computer modeling. Since viewer used to consume such kind of product, movie industry changed its direction from acting and interesting films to epopees and blockbusters, and while technical quality of film increases viewer’s indiscriminateness, quality of plots and screenplay accordingly gets lower and lower.

So because of that tendency each movie with story even a bit differs from common is being accepted as a revelation; such movies get awards, their director becomes famous and gets a lot of money and promotion for further films and usually fails on it. The best example is Christopher Nolan, whose triumphal rise with “Memento” turns into complete fuck-up with “The Dark Knight Fails Rises”. Joss Whedon, a corpulent redhead and possibly jew (that is definitely good) is already self-established scenarist, so I hope he will not repeat this sorrowful way. Whedon is an author of gorgeous “Firefly”, mysterious “Doll House”, and many more awesome or just outstanding works, so it was evident to anticipate something special from him.

As every another well-established subgenre of well-established genre, slasher movies have a wide variety of stamps, clichés and traditions. The beginning of the tendency was brought years ago, and it was supported recently by “Tucker and Dale vs. Evil” where Tyler Labine and Alan Tudyk portrayed all the feelings laying on another side of slasher movie conflict, but those efforts was not enough. Thus the universe still had need in a film that will point dots over “i” about slasher clichés once and for all, and finally this film arose – welcome “The Cabin in the Woods”.

It is almost impossible to tell something about this movie avoiding any kind of spoilers. This obstacle appears on the way because of monolithic unity of movie’s all components, but what should be mentioned is general wit running through the whole movie. Witty is all in this film, from opening and closure titles (especially the latter), from characters and dialogues to plot and screenplay, no need to mention citations, parallels and all homage to slasher movie history. In addition to wit, second weapon (hail Spanish Inquisition) of Cabin is inpredictability that could compete with M. Night Shyamalan best works. Although director and story writer constantly give us clues and hints during the narration development, but you can try to get an idea about what the fuck is going here only near second part of the movie.

The Cabin in the Woods is brand new (without irony or mistake) sight on the slasher movie, sight full of both sarcastic mockery and gentle admiration, and unfortunately this sight declines all the possibilities to genre evolution. This movie points all the dots on all “i"’s, and the biggest dot gets its place at the end. I doubt that sometimes somebody could invent something that could overcome “The Cabin in the Woods” on its field, so do not hesitate to see this movie.

As A Result: brilliant postmodern movie in best meaning of these controversial words

Watch It?: not a matter of discussion

Slither (2006)

Hybrid movie genres were born, as well as hybrid genres in whole, when particular genres obtain a kind of crisis. When all the means are exhausted, when all the stories are used and nothing revolutionary can take a rise, the only way to avoid running on the spot is a merge with something other. Usually the more unsuitable is parent couple, the better interesting and even weird the offspring could become.

A hybrid between “sci-fi” horror B-movie and a comedy could appear unnatural, but this is only the first impression, because in fact these genres are overlapping wery widely. Really, what is the main aim of horror movie in whole? The main aim of horror movie is to scare all shit out of watcher (as well it is a secondary aim of a good thriller movie), AND take him a relaxation through such manner of action; comedy ALSO brings relaxation but by the laugh. Also it is to be noticed, that often B-movies carry the comic element inherently just by its humble and cheap realization. Monsters made of papier-mâché, lightning spark produced from photoflash, and mainly poor performing by amateur actors – this explosive mixture almost always look hilarious and could produce a lot of fun (remember Ed Wood). Well, we have a potential hybrid with one dominant quantitative treat on both parents, and thus this treat will be inherited by offspring. So, the parody lying between horror (with scientific milieu or a straight slasher) and a comedy (of american type) is a popular target for some unexperienced director, and right this thing is a bull’s eye to satire of this movie. I cannot call James Gunn unexperienced, as well as I cannot call a production of “Slither” poor, so here we have a targeted sarcasm merged with work of strong director and simultaneously with homage to lot of really strong classic horror movies like “The Thing” (even with direct references like names of people and places).

More interesting is that I cannot call “Slither” a pure hybrid of such type, but nevertheless I cannot call him a pure parody either. Unlike pure hybrids (for example, “Hatchet”), Slither does not belong to straight comedy because director do not elucidate the comic element, directly deriding stamps, but tightly weave it in fabric of narration, and the main tool of this element is an acting. All that makes you laugh in Slither doesn't lay mainly in dialogues and deeds of characters, but is dissolved in narrative and origins from outstanding performing of almost each role (although Elisabeth Banks looks relatively weaker). Michael Rooker does really know how to perform anybody, even a man who become a giant slick flesh consuming bulk of protoplasm from outer space and does it with nonchalant chic; Gregg Henry calls a smile just by his look, and because of his acting the mayor I laughed my ass off the geostationary orbit; and of course the brilliant acting of Nathan Fillionis the pivot of the movie, a cramp that holds everything in whole – and it was the first film when I saw him years ago, and it is definitely not the last. And sure the uproarious cameo appearances of James Gunn and Lloyd Kaufman cannot leave anybody indifferent. Awesome film, light as capuccino. P.S. Due to Nathan Fillion's matchless performing here, I make here a special tag named of him. And for James Gunn too. Hail them!

As A Result: pure professionalism and subtle irony.

Watch It?: of course.