Blood on the Grindstone

Choi Min-sik, Oh San-ha (photo courtesy of Magnet Releasing)

For years, I have had a love/hate relationship with Asian horror films. Lately, the relationship has gotten much better, but I had to put in a lot of effort to get it to this point. Initially, the trouble started around the time when “Ringu” and “Ju-on” ( and their American equivalents “The Ring” and “The Grudge”) became popular. I liked the visual style, atmosphere, and the serious tone, but I felt that the storyline in both of those films was just “eh”. That’s the only way I could sum it up, by shrugging my shoulders and saying “eh”. They were decent films and well made, but I felt that the stories were commonplace and were not all that impressive – or scary for that matter. I know I am a finicky audience member because I have seen a lot of horror films and I like my horror to be off-of-the-beaten-path, but even so, I didn’t get what all of the fuss over Asian horror was about.

So, I continued along and tried a few Asian films every now and then. I watched the Hong Kong version of “The Eye” and I felt “eh” about that too. I watched “The Host” and I wasn’t totally happy with that either. Not a bad film, but it lacked a solid identity. It tried to be an infection film and a monster movie, but it mainly turned out to be a well-made Sy-Fy Channel/Asylum movie. Although, “The Host” did have an original storyline and didn’t have the prerequisite “-oid”, “dino-“, “mega-“, or “vs” in the title.

Despite my frustration, I pressed on and dug a little deeper. I watched “Reincarnation” (one of the original After Dark Horrorfest films) and I thought it was better that what I had been watching but it still wasn’t spectacular. Shortly after, I watched “3 Extremes” (the first one) and I actually liked it. The film contained three bizarre and interesting stories that were about something other than ghosts enacting revenge by crawling out of TVs, walls, and bathtubs (yes, I know, one tale is about revenge, but it is revenge performed by a human psychopath).

Then came the day when a friend showed me “Battle Royale”. Finally, I was fulfilled by an Asian horror film and I began to realize what all of the fuss was about. My friend actually set me on the right course and told me that I had to dig even deeper. He explained that the popular films coming out of Asia were the ones that had mass appeal for a mass American audience. They weren’t necessarily the best that Asian horror has to offer. He was right. There were some incredible Asian horror films out there and one in particular changed my whole attitude towards the subgenre.

About a year ago, I saw “Oldboy” for the first time. It totally floored me. It was the best Asian horror film that I had seen (it is much more than horror, but that’s the easiest way to put it). It’s epic, disturbing, beautiful, and the story is totally enthralling. I loved it so much that I considered it to the best South Korean horror film That is… until now. Until I watched “I Saw the Devil”. Now, I consider “Oldboy” to be one of the best horror films to come out of South Korea.

Kim In-seo (photo courtesy of Magnet Releasing)

“I Saw the Devil” is a film from South Korean director, Kim Jee-woon. It is about a highly-trained government agent (played by Lee Byung-hun) whose pregnant wife is murdered by a serial killer (played by Choi Min-sik). The agent is devastated and after taking some vacation time, he begins to track down his wife’s killer. The agent finally catches up to the killer, right before he claims another female victim. The agent beats the killer senseless and injures him, but lets the killer live. When the killer comes to, he starts to realize what is going on. The rest of the film is about the hunter becoming the hunted and as this plays out, the nature of revenge is fully explored.

First off, one of the strong points of the film is that it is not too “heady” or preachy in its exploration of revenge. The agent is torn up by his wife’s murder and he wishes to enact revenge on the killer. However, it gets to the point where the agent is almost reluctant to keep going, almost wishing for someone to tell him to stop. There’s a nice scene where he actually breaks down in tears and you get the sense that he’s thinking, “What the hell am I doing? Is this what I wanted? Am I satisfied now?” The film poses many interesting questions like that and it is done in an entertaining way.

As far as the serial killing goes, it is familiar territory but it is very well-done. The killer’s mother and father think that he is strange but don’t know about his hidden life as a killer. He is a cannibal and he is friends with other killers who are cannibals. He kills simply out of lust for the killing and it seems like he can’t stop. However, the really interesting thing about the serial killer is that he doesn’t care about any human and he really has nothing to lose. As the film progresses, this becomes a dilemma for the agent and the following questions are posed: What do you take away from a killer who cares about nothing? How do you inflict pain and loss on this guy?

Those are interesting thoughts and the superb acting helps bring those thoughts to the surface. Lee Byung-hun (as the agent) has a nice discipline and stoicism about him that sets up some powerful emotion moments where he breaks down. He is highly focused on his mission but you can see that it is torturing him on the inside. Choi Min-sik (as the killer) is awesome and he is a thrill to watch. I did say that the serial killer content is familiar, but Min-sik’s acting makes it interesting and fresh. He has the perfect combination of charm, a friendly face, and the bloodlust of predatory animal. Despite some predictability in the overall film, Min-sik has an unpredictable quality where you are not sure what he is going to do in each situation. Plus, you forget all about his character in “Oldboy”. He is that good in this. These two main actors also have a fantastic supporting cast, which brings out the best in this film.

Lee Byung-hun (photo courtesy of Magnet Releasing)

Yes, this is predominantly a thinking man’s horror film and there is a lot of “meat” to it. However, another strength of the film is that it still manages to deliver thrills and horror. It has a very nice balance which runs from the “high” philosophical musings of revenge down to the graphic, depraved violence of the lowest level of humanity. There is something for everyone in this film – you get both substance and style.

One incredible scene – that I have to draw attention to – demonstrates that sub-human, depraved type of violence. It’s after one of the agent’s encounters with the killer. After escaping and making it to the nearby highway, the killer hails a taxi that just happens to be travelling on the lonesome stretch of road. After chatting with the driver and passenger for few moments, the killer makes his intentions known and he proceeds to stab both of them to death. As he is stabbing the two men, the camera follows the action by moving around the whole frame of the cab (it looks like they constructed the interior of a cab on set and slowly rotated it as the camera was rolling). The blood spray is horrific, the violence is jarring, and it’s a lovely scene. In fact, it’s one of the best kill scenes that I’ve ever experienced in a horror film. It’s beautiful and it is a nice contrast to the thought-provoking material of the film.

As one can tell, I highly recommend “I Saw the Devil”. It is epic, it is much more than horror, it crosses many genres, gives excellent food for thought, gives some gory thrills, the cinematography is flawless, and it leaves you feeling satisifed with the experience. The only drawbacks are the predictability, the typical background of the killer, and the ending  – which felt more like an epilogue then a climax. But after thinking about it, the ending does make a lot of sense because it fits in with the overall message of the film, regarding the nature of revenge. See that, I’m still thinking about the film. “I Saw the Devil” definitely sticks with you and it is worth every moment of your time.

Review and Quick Byte by Peter Syslo  

“Scary Tales” is the latest film from Geno McGahee and X Posse Productions. It is a horror anthology that is comprised of four individual stories plus a fifth “wraparound” story. The film is based upon the following premise: four high school friends in a remote cabin tell scary stories in a “hey, I heard about this one guy across town…” kind of way. If you are a fan of 1970s and 1980s horror anthologies, you will notice that the style is very similar to those types of films. Actually, “Scary Tales” is a reshoot/reimagining of an earlier unreleased version of the film, by McGahee and X Posse.

The first tale is called “The Bully” and it is about a man who comes face-to-face with the consequences of his violent tendencies. The second is “Curiosity Kills”, which focuses on two cousins who are on the run after a family incident. They stumble upon a house in the woods that looks abandoned, but they discover it may still have occupants. The third is a genre-crossing story called “Majority Rules”. It’s a mix of crime caper and horror that’s about a poker game gone wrong. The fourth is “The Bridge” – my personal favorite –  which is about a small-town bridge that may or may not be cursed by an evil presence. The fifth and final tale is called “The Cabin”. This is the wraparound story that involves the four friends (from the beginning of the film) telling their scary stories.

There’s no sense beating around the bush with this one, so I’ll get right to the point: I really liked “Scary Tales” and I think that it is McGahee’s best film.

Since the film is about storytelling, I think that I’ll start with the writing. McGahee pulled out all the stops with his writing and crafted a refined, interesting, and airtight script. He even injects some social commentary into it by incorporating aspects of the current, lousy economy (job market, behind on mortgage, etc). Overall, he took a textured, multi-layered approach to writing each of the five tales and that is one of the main reasons why “Scary Tales” is his best work.

I’ll use “The Bridge” to give you an example of the excellent writing. One thing that I loved about “The Bridge” was the fact that McGahee not only wrote a story about a cursed bridge but he went deeper and actually wrote an entire mythology behind the cursed bridge (like the killer’s back story in a slasher film). There were period-consistent images of the bankers and the railroad tycoons who originally built the bridge and the footage had the look of a historical documentary. That was incredible and you don’t often see that quality and depth in independent productions.

Along with the stories, McGahee also employed finely-tuned dialogue throughout the film. The way that he wrote the dialogue left room for each actor to express emotion rather than just deliver lines. I have always liked McGahee’s dialogue – it is very intelligent and he says a lot – but there were times in the past where there was too much dialogue for some scenes. This time, McGahee took a pinpointed approach – said more with less words – and this allowed each scene to “breathe” a little. This, in turn, made the whole film seem more “real”, because it reflected how people really talk and interact with one another.

One nice example of the refined dialogue was in “Curiosity Kills”. There is a scene where the two cousins are talking by a campfire. Each has a line or two of dialogue, then there is a second or two of silence, then the dialogue picks up again. During that bit of silence, you see facial expressions and you, the viewer, get to digest what was said. This was very effective because it demonstrated a “natural” type of interaction (one person speaks – the other listens, thinks about what was said, and then responds). As a byproduct of the dialogue, I felt that “Curiosity Kills” contained some of the best acting in the film.

On the whole, “Scary Tales” has some of the best acting that I have seen in a McGahee film. I know that he worked with some new actors on this, who were all very good and added greatly to the film. However, I also want to give credit to his returning/veteran actors and note that they have really grown as performers. Again, I think that McGahee’s script helped with this because it seemed like all of the actors were very comfortable with the material. That, in turn, made performances seem genuine. Actually, the theme of the whole “Scary Tales” experience is just that: the actors, Geno McGahee, and the crew have become comfortable, confident, and have come-into-their-own.

Moving on to the technical aspects of “Scary Tales”, I thought that the cinematography and lighting were excellent. McGahee and crew have become very skilled at night shots; they are well-lit, they have clarity, yet they still demonstrate that natural beauty of the night. Overall, the camera was used very skillfully and really told the tale, visually (also a result of great editing). This is especially noticeable when two characters are interacting. The camera shifts from one to the other, exemplifying the interaction rather than the camera focusing on both at the same time.

The set design and locations were great, which also strengthened the visual element of the film. “The Bridge” was my favorite example of this, with the wonderful historical shots and the imposing look of the actual bridge.

The effects and make-up looked great and worked extremely well. There was also some CGI, but it was well-done and looked real. McGahee and crew know how to work with effects and seem to use the less-is-more approach when filming/editing an effects shot. The effect is clearly seen but the pull-away or cut preserves the “realness” of the effect.

Finally, the music added nice atmosphere and provided some pacing to the film. Actually, the film seemed “fuller” with a score, enhancing the overall “Scary Tales” experience. Yet another reason for the professional quality of this film.

After all of that, I really don’t have much criticism. Creatively, Scary Tales is excellent. The only problems I would mention are a few minor things, such as: the sound level occasionally is uneven (a few very loud door slams) and a line of dialogue here and there sounds a little forced. But, that’s it… and that’s just being nitpicky.

With “Scary Tales”, McGahee and crew have made it to the next level. For an independent company, the quality and craftsmanship is amazing. It is very impressive work and it doesn’t feel like five separate stories – it is a unified whole. Every shot has meaning and nothing is superfluous. While I was watching it, I kind of forgot that I was reviewing it. I was thoroughly enjoying it and was immersed in the experience. When you get right down to it, I think that’s the mark of a good film. When you don’t have to try to watch it. When it just pulls you in and you want to see what happens next.

Review and Quick Byte by Peter Syslo

  Sara Paxton and Pat Healy (photo courtesy of Magnet Releasing)

As a horror fan, I have to admit that sometimes I don’t know what I want. There, I said it. Feels good to get that off my chest. Often, I hear myself saying that movies in the 1980s were fun, movies in the 1970s were intelligent, remakes are unbelievably annoying, and everything made from 2000-present is mediocre. Those are generalizations that I use to express frustration, but I am reasonable enough to know that when I say those things, I may be full-of-it. I do like some modern horror films and, realistically, there are good and bad films (also overrated films) in every decade, from independent and major studios. So, where does that leave me? What is it that I want in a horror film? Also, what is my point?

Well, I’ve come to the conclusion that the frustration I often feel, as a horror fan, stems from the fact that I am looking for something that is interesting or engaging. I am looking for something that is unique and that stirs some type of reaction within me. You could see how that makes it difficult to say exactly what I want in a horror film. In past decades, I could say that I liked a specific sub-genre of horror, such as slasher films. But these days, that no longer applies. It’s gotten to the point where I take every film on an individual basis. I may or may not like a film and I feel no obligation to any subgenre, studio, director, or “rave reviews” from other critics. My final statement on this matter is: I watch what I want and I like what I like. If it’s interesting, I will be happy. Now, on to the review.

I feel that I needed that explanation because Ti West’s “The Innkeepers” is a good example of what I want in horror. The film is a traditional haunting story that centers on a girl and guy who work at an old, Victorian type of inn. The two are also amateur paranormal investigators (with the video cameras, audio recorders, etc) and they are looking to get some footage before the inn closes for good, in the next few days. They decide to investigate a legend about a woman who mysteriously died at the inn, years ago. Along the way, they both have some strange experiences and it gets even stranger when a semi-retired actress, who is into spiritual healing, comes to stay the night. As the story unfolds, the three of them find out if the inn is really haunted or if it’s just collective paranoia.

When I said that “The Innkeepers” is a traditional haunting story, I meant that it is similar to a literary type of haunting story. Something in the vein of Poe’s “The Fall of the House of Usher”. Film-wise, I think it’s a throwback to the classic horror films of the 1930s and 1940s. What this means is that most of the film is a build-up of suspense and most of the conflict and action takes place in the last 20-30 minutes. Some call it a “slow burn” type of film and Ti West is known for this style of filmmaking.

Before I go on, I do want to say that I am a fan of Ti West. I really liked “The House of the Devil”, “The Roost” has a certain charm to it, and I actually liked what he did with “Cabin Fever 2”. He always delivers a well-developed story, he crafts intelligent and fresh dialogue, he creates interesting non-stereotypical characters, and he seems to have some reverence/respect for the horror-works of the past.

But, the thing I enjoy most about West’s films is his realism. Not pessimism, realism. In a way I consider him to be the anti- John Hughes because his characters don’t have all of their dreams come true and don’t always win in the end. However, they do learn something about themselves and they develop as human beings. Don’t get me wrong, I love John Hughes but his films are fantasy depictions of human interaction – similar to what Frank Capra depicted in his films. Actually, there’s a funny scene in an episode of “Cheers” where the gang is watching “It’s a Wonderful Life”. Norm says something like, “trust me. when you’re in trouble with the bank people do not come running over with money”. Ti West is that realistic voice of Norm Peterson. West explores common human experiences of success and failure, in a very likeable way. Again, he is not dark and depressing, he is realistic.

That realism is present in “The Innkeepers”, but unfortunately, the film didn’t totally satisfy me. My problem with the film is that it took a little too long to “get going” and I started to lose interest. Overall, it was a well-crafted and intelligent film but it lacked the basic component of a horror film: horror. I don’t mean gore, blood, zombies, and masked killers. I mean the horrifying thing that should be the basis of a horror film. In this case, it was the ghost of the woman who died at the inn. “The Innkeepers” kept hinting at the ghost, had a great build-up up to it, and did have a couple of ghost scenes, but it wasn’t enough. Overall, I don’t think that the “payoff” was equivalent to the wait.

For that reason, the film was very frustrating. I was really looking forward to it and it was one of those films that I wanted to like more than I actually did. It just needed a little more – just a little more – ghost content and it would have been a fulfilling experience. It’s also frustrating because 85% of the film was outstanding. Here’s a rundown of the positives: all of the acting was excellent; the dialogue was superb because it was very realistic; the characters were incredibly well-developed, each had strengths and weaknesses, each was going through some sort of transition in their lives, and each went through a “changing” moment; the setting of the inn was perfect; the special effects and look of the ghost were exciting and unique; and lastly, the story was very strong and well thought-out. If just a little more heat was added to the slow-burn, the film would have been closer to 100% outstanding.

Despite my opinion, “The Innkeepers” is still a better film than the majority of current horror films. I just wanted more from it. However, it did give me most of what I am looking for in a horror film. West is one of my favorite modern horror filmmakers and it is possible that he may be the one who comes out with that genre-changing horror flick. As horror fans, we’re all chasing that dragon.

Review and Quick Byte by Peter Syslo