Tobe Hooper, 1974
Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a rarity in the apocalyptic horror films of the 1970s. It's almost completely devoid of blood and gore, preferring to function on terror alone. Even the titular chainsaw makes only a single victim (and even that is filmed from the victim's back, se we don't actually see anything).
However, the horror of the situation and the resulting growing tension makes for one unnerving movie. And its clear that Leatherface himself is only titularly a bad guy. Obviously autistic, he was just born into the wrong family. Leatherface only kills because strangers have invaded his family home and he panics. However, his homicidal tendencies have been channeled by his crazy relatives, who have become a bit too enamored of working in a slaughterhouse all these years.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre holds together pretty good after all these years. Its restraint in showing the good stuff clearly works in its favour, as it prefers to emphasises horror and terror, a wise move that its many sequels, prequels and remakes have unfortunately ingnored.
Matthijs van Heijningen Jr., 2011
Speaking of pointless remakes and prequels, The Thing fits the bill perfectly. A prequel to the 1982 John Carpenter film, The Thing seeks to explain what happened to the Norwegian camp just before the Thing escapes to the American one.
Unfortunately, we already know what happened to them. Watch Carpenter's film if you don't believe me: the Norwegians have dug up the alien space ship, the Thing is found, gets thawed and...well, I guess you can take it up from there. The film offers very little surprise, even less suspense (we already know what's going to happen) and ultimately offers nothing new except...once again...a CGI showcase.
Even in that respect, the movie fails. The Thing may have got itself a makeover after all these years, but it still up to the same tricks (last time however, the actors were able to actually touch the Thing, adding a level of reality clearly absent here). The level of imagination present in 1982 is conspicuous by its absence. Something tells me this hasn't been written by a leaving breathing human being, but by a photocopy machine that has suddenly developped AI.
And that's the problem of prequels in a nutshell: well-made, a prequel might informs us of some forgotten or unknown aspect of a situation we see in the original movie, without changing the narrative. Most of the times, however, they only show us things we already suspected, or gathered from background information. In any case, this one fails at almost every level and cannot be seen as anything other than a complete waste of time.
Ken Russell, 1971
The cinematic excesses of Ken Russell are legendary, but every once in a while you can see then methods behind the madness and many of his films holds together far better than others.
Case in point The Devils certainly one of his better films because it has an actual story supported by the growing array of discordant imagery. Set in the explosive period of 17th century France, a time when religious tensions between Catholic and Protestants forced Carnidal Richelieu to take extreme measures to bring back religious unity (by force if necessary). However, when confronted by a rebellious town whose religious unity is a fait accompli, the Cardinal cannot accept this and force the issue by sending corrupt noblemen and insane inquisitors to unravel this hotbed of...harmony by disposing of the one man who stands against him: Urbain Grandier.
However, the dissolute priest (while acting in the best interest of his town of Loudun), offers flanks to criticism so large, than even the lowliest of Stormtroopers cannot hope to miss. In the end, Grandier is undone by his own disastrous reputation as well as by the conspirational forces aligned against him. Watch as city magistrates, priests, nuns and "doctors" work together to destroy their own city. All for the sake of culling the rebels inside it. Loudun residents hoping for a "more perfect union" will be left wanting as any shred of independence shall be stomped by one ambitious Cardinal. And whoever said religion was boring?
No comments:
Post a Comment