Snakes on a Plane.

Review #2571: Snakes on a Plane.

Cast: 

Samuel L. Jackson (Agent Neville Flynn), Julianna Margulies (Claire Miller), Nathan Phillips (Sean Jones), Rachel Blanchard (Mercedes Harbont), Flex Alexander (Clarence "Three G's" Dewey), Kenan Thompson (Troy), Keith Dallas (Big Leroy), Sunny Mabrey (Tiffany Engelhard), Bruce James (Ken), Lin Shaye (Grace), Terry Chen (Chen Leong), Elsa Pataky (Maria), Mark Houghton (Agent John Sanders), David Koechner (Rick Archibald), Bobby Cannavale (Special Agent Hank Harris), and Todd Louiso (Dr. Steven Price) Directed by David R. Ellis (#437 - Homeward Bound II: Lost in San Francisco, #2137 - Final Festination 2)

Review: 

Hey, this is a month dedicated to the flops from audiences in its time, and this technically counts. 20 years ago, New Line Cinema believed they were on the cusp of a pretty good hit on their hands with an "internet phenomenon"...and then it wasn't. I'm not kidding, there were magazines that put it on the cover and asked if the "Hokey Horror Flick" could "Change The Movie Business". The project was first discussed in 1999 after a Dreamworks executive in Craig Berenson read a script called "Venom" by David Dalessandro, an administrator at the University of Pittsburgh and first-time scriptwriter that had been inspired by reading an article about Indonesian brown tree snakes climbing on cargo planes in World War II and eventually was inspired to have a script, with, well, lots of snakes. Berenson found that script and on a "happy hour" type of party, he pitched it as "Snakes on a Plane" and thought, hey, maybe there is something to it, which is where he got the services of John Heffernan to work on the story. Years of pitching and re-writes (which added one more credited writer with Sebastian Gutierrez) eventually got it to New Line Cinema and Ronny Yu to direct and Jackson to star in it, mainly because of the title. Sure, they quickly lost Yu due to disagreements (which led to the hiring of stuntman-turned filmmaker Ellis, behind films such as Final Destination 2), and sure, New Line tried to rename the project "Pacific Flight 121" (others report it as "Pacific Air 121"), and sure, they initially aimed for a PG-13 rating even during shooting, but eventually there was a movie ready to go for people to speculate on (such as screenwriters) online. New Line aimed to engage with fan-generated speculation and take the movie seriously. Debuting for audiences (with no screenings for critics) on August 18, 2006 (other choices that month included films such as Barnyard, The Descent, Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, World Trade Center, Step Up, The Illusionist) and released on a budget of $33 million, the movie made almost double its budget that was labeled as just an "Internet-only phenomenon" and a "dud". Ellis directed three further films (one direct-to-video), with the last being Shark Night in 2011 prior to his sudden death in 2013 at the age of 60.

For a movie that shows at least a dozen people joining the body count movie, it sure doesn't feel like a horror movie (that "hokey" label seems more like a joke). The opening seems more of a reworking of the crap you saw in those Airport movies (27 minutes, mainly) but it eventually becomes obvious where they tried to shoehorn it being an R-rated movie (with the occasional shot of blood). It may interest you to know that most of the snakes in the film are either CG or animatronic, especially the ones that don't attack people or encounter Jackson. I suppose it could make a doubleheader with Cocaine Bear (2023) in the "hey, it's a movie with a title like that, why not?" department*, although most people probably are more spooked by bears than wondering about what type of snake is venomous. To be honest, as a person who actually has had a snake around their shoulders (as I vaguely remember from a trip to a nature center), I'll take the snake over flying right about now, trusting a tin can flying in the air where you could theoretically get blown up or deal with aircraft decompression or deal with, well, a crappy-made plane. I guess I'm stalling at trying to understand what all the fuss about this movie was, which, really, is it known for anything other than that one line said about 80 minutes into its 106-minute runtime about having had enough of these [you know the swear] planes on this ... plane? Anybody? It's an overgrown B-movie made for way too much money to be considered one that has exactly one joke (tongue in cheek because ha ha, get it, it's a movie that can be used in a punchline of a sitcom) and the bare minimum to actually have fun with. You've got three folks better known for TV (Margulies, Alexander, and Thompson*) paired with basically nothing from Phillips for a movie that thinks throwing snakes around the compartments and having the bare minimum of carnage is enough. Nope. I like Jackson, and he seems to be having some fun here, but this is a movie that begs to just be an Air Force One (thought be some as a Die Hard pastiche) ripoff rather than pairing him with basically nothing to really engage with (imagine if it was say...Gans Hruber threatening to release snakes from a time-controlled crate unless he gets money while also motioning to kill the witness anyway - it would be the most delusional movie ever). Creature features can't really reach the levels of Jaws (1975), so folks basically try to get on the level of trying to rise above say, Anaconda [1997] (honestly, that movie might be a bit more interesting, at least it has an actual adversary in the mayhem).

Oh, but you don't need to know much about their personal lives besides the intro, well, I want to at least feel like people are going to go through peril, and it's not saying much when Shaye's character going down under is the highlight of seeing sacrifices and "into the jaws of death" moments (you could count a yapping dog being thrown into the path of a snake, but, well, really?). You'd think going around using a taser on snakes and having a kickboxer character would be enough, but it just feels like a movie going through the motions with an assured feeling of doing enough without actually proving anything. The snakes just aren't that spooky enough to make me unsettled beyond the "will they take down any of the comedy relief?" (get it, the musician with guards is actually a germophobe? get it? get it, one of them gets bit in the ass? get it? get it, the movie rests on the power of PlayStation* flight simulating? get it). There are certain movies that feel like "fast food movies" that basically go through you with one viewing and satisfy the bare minimum, and some of them accomplish the job of satisfying the general expectation laid out by its viewer (action movie with explosions, horror movie with scares*, whatever). Snakes on a Plane just feels like microwaved leftovers: you've done this before and you just don't feel like it matters to actually do it again (to say nothing of those mockblusters that come out from folks such as The Asylum - a waste of time if there ever was one!*). Some movies can get on by with an decent lead among its cast and middling tension, but this is one that has no actual fangs in it that results in an overhyped, overblown mediocrity.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Next up: who knows? 

*Also the department of "includes kids in the peril but in the mildest possible way that totally isn't cowardly". 

*The three in particular for 2006 was ER*, One on One and Saturday Night Live. Anyway, The only modern TV show I really got into when it was *new* was Lucifer (before Fox was too stupid to cancel it) and The Blacklist. as for Margulies, what the hell is a The Good Wife?

*Lmao, Nintendo forever.

*I don't care what they say, you do have to be a bit scary in your horror movie. 

*Sharknado was made for television but at least that went into a few theaters for midnight showings. But most of their crap goes direct-to-video, which is something I explicitly do not aim for. 

Redux: A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984).

Redux #474: A Nightmare on Elm Street.

Cast: 

Heather Langenkamp (Nancy Thompson), Robert Englund (Fred "Freddy" Krueger), Johnny Depp (Glen Lantz), Ronee Blakley (Marge Thompson), John Saxon (Lt. Donald "Don" Thompson), Amanda Wyss (Christina "Tina" Gray), Nick Corri (Rod Lane), Leslie Hoffman (Hall Guard), Joseph Whipp (Sgt. Parker), Charles Fleischer (Dr. King), and Lin Shaye (Teacher) Written and Directed by Wes Craven.

Review: 

Editor's note: while the original review was roughly on point for 257 words (as opposed to the usual "not great" reviews that I have slowly re-done over the past few years), it is obvious this one needed a re-doing anyway after eleven years. Enjoy.

In his life and career, Wes Craven made twenty feature films as a filmmaker, with all but one that belonged to the horror or thriller genre. The Cleveland native had been raised in a strict Baptist family while studying philosophy and writing at Johns Hopkins University before becoming a filmmaker rather than stay on as a teacher; he stated that seeing To Kill a Mockingbird (1962) was the film that "changed his life". His first major effort came up with The Last House on the Left (1972) that was wildly controversial and successful. The Hills Have Eyes (1977) was mildly successful while his first two features of the 1980s in Deadly Blessing (1981) and Swamp Thing (1982) were deemed fine. But it was this film (his fifth as a filmmaker) that really put him at the forefront. Craven had several inspirations for this film, such as the real-life stories covering "Sudden arrhythmic death syndrome", in which newspapers were covering the sudden death of Hmong refugees who had fled Laos (and other Asian countries) to America in the midst of war that saw them suffer nightmares and die in their sleep. Several studios rejected the screenplay except New Line Cinema (as operated by Robert Shaye), which at the time was mostly known as a distributor. As one already knows, the film (made on a budget of $1.8 million) became a franchise, even though Craven had really intended for it to end on a strange evocative note (apparently, the one they came up, involving a door with effects-use came about after brainstorming ideas with Robert Shaye that was quoted by Craven as having "amused us all so much, we couldn't not use it."). Craven rejected doing the 1985 sequel (which didn't even have a returning cast member besides Englund) but he did return to collaborate on the third film and Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994). Craven died at the age of 76 in 2015. The series even went through the usual cycle of getting "remade" for modern audiences, although that 2010 remake (as directed by Samuel Bayer with Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy) is currently the last movie with the name to be released, even with the rights reverting back to the Craven estate.

It really is a movie all about facing reality, which actually works wonders at the hands of Craven for likely his best directing effort in terms of horror craftsmanship. It is funny, for all the times I've re-watched Halloween (1978) over the years, I forgot how good A Nightmare on Elm Street was in terms of its place among slasher movies, since it features a killer threat that isn't merely a lumbering presence (complete with having a cool supporting presence in an established actor). Sure, the bodycount and characterization of its lead threat would get further complicated in later films, but nothing touches the original in entertaining terror. Imagine being trapped in a dream that just won't end, one that seems very real and very much in one's conscious in terms of boogeymen. For his performance, Englund (cast because David Warner had scheduling conflicts after being cast originally) was inspired by Lon Chaney's monster performances alongside Klaus Kinski in Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979), which extends to the way he approached using his claw (in one interview, he stated a goal to "be mildly erotic", since we are talking about a dream invader). The strange thing is that the remake strived to have the makeup resemble third-degree burns (as based on photographs seen at the UCLA Medical Center) more closely and yet the first film probably did it best when it comes to terror, which features a few moments in shadows (alongside the other stuff, of course). It is tremendous how a performance can really work so well in making a capable villain, where he moves with theatricality to make a terrifying predator in ways that were not surpassed in the sequels to come. Saxon already was a presence in horror movies such as Black Christmas (1974) after years spent in Italian films and Westerns. Saxon has that familiarity factor where we just go with whatever he is playing, whether that involves authority figures or not (interestingly, he and Englund each wrote their own scripts for a third Nightmare film, which didn't come to pass); Blakely has the other side of the coin in fairly established presences (Nashville, for example) that actually does pretty well in conniving complicity (I roll with that final shot because, well, the hook was going to be weird regardless of how it went). Langenkamp had minimal film/TV experience but fit the bill of what Craven envisioned for basically an every-girl. It just clicks with her in terms of reactive timing and curiosity that is easy to roll with in confronting fear that stands starkly among most of the final folks in a slasher (her subsequent key appearances in the 3rd and 7th film were well deserved, one would say). The rest of the cast may be disposable lambs, but they at least are neat to go along with for a bit (Depp being a future star in the decade must've sure been a hell of a surprise, suffice to say). It manages to do so well with its budget through the execution of its crew and director in crafting an enjoyably spooky time in the play between fantasy and reality that isn't diminished by its subsequent franchising (for example, the gore went beyond blood out of a bed but probably doesn't have a fraction of the enduring power). Craven crafted a damn good classic that seemingly gets better upon re-watching for its craft on display, which is the mark of being one of the best slashers of its time that is a worthwhile statement to muse about four decades later.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Insidious.

Review #1556: Insidious.

Cast: 
Patrick Wilson (Josh Lambert), Rose Byrne (Renai Lambert), Lin Shaye (Elise Rainier), Ty Simpkins (Dalton Lambert), Barbara Hershey (Lorraine Lambert), Leigh Whannell (Steven "Specs"), and Angus Sampson (Tucker) Directed by James Wan (#1175 - Aquaman)

Review: 
"I wanted to prove to people that I could make a very classic, old-fashioned haunted house film and show that I could make scary films without relying on blood and guts."

Sure, one can go the mainstream path with horror films, or they can go into independent features that try to reach audiences without trying to compromise themselves too much in vision, whether with gore or not. James Wan found himself as a key figure in making independent horror that reached mainstream success. Born in Malaysia but raised in Western Australia, he graduated from RMIT University with a bachelor's degree in Media in 1998 that helped him teach him about the process of filmmaking he had wanted to do. Wan made his first film in collaboration with Shannon Young as Stygian (2000), a 16mm low-budget action-horror feature that found its way to local film festivals (such as Melbourne's Underground Film Festival, which noted it as having a great use of the "Guerilla Aesthetic"). It was his directorial debut in true features however that proved prominence however: Writing with Leigh Whannell on a script that was inspired by their dreams and fears. Aspiring to pitch to studios with something presentable, they made a short film together in 2003. The nine minute short (with Whannell appearing as the star) Saw ended up attracting enough attention for a subsequent feature film to be directed by Wan the following year. While Wan would co-write for the third film, Wan moved on to other features, although Dead Silence and Death Sentence (both 2007) proved less successful, leading him to take a rest until he aspired to make a horror film with Whannell without needing to resort to gore. He has kept himself busy with horror in directing and producing (aside from a few profitable blockbusters), which included directing the second of the subsequent Insidious franchise.

Sure, it is easy to go around the bend and call the film an attempt at a modern-day Poltergeist (1984), with its haunted house aspect (...to a point) and having to have a parent rescue their child from the other world and such. But that would miss the point of the fact that this is actually more equal to the sequels of Poltergeist in that they are laughably missing adequate scares along with its attempt at explaining itself in the second half for less adequate effect. I do wonder how the film might have been with acting that seems more prepared than having three weeks to film - of course it could also be possible that Wilson and Byrne just okay and that's that. One gets to partake in the "things are happening and I'm the only one who sees it", while the other tags in for the latter half and handle the horror themselves because plot reasons or something. One almost wishes for more Shaye at that point (without more of the obvious bumbling from Sampson and Whannell), mostly because one would probably want the soothing temperament in reaction to building horror as opposed to the family aspect (oops).  If you desire a film that tries to ride on atmosphere with a bit of visuals that don't rely on gore, this could be for you, but honestly this just came off as a parlor trick that has seen better days. This was written by Leigh Whannell (who wrote for all four Insidious films while directing the third one and also doing his own somewhat overrated horror film with The Invisible Man ten years later), who as with Saw also has an important small role in the film. 

Wan and Whannell can be applauded for their attempts at making a cheap little family drama falling into horror that maintains their independence without spending more than $1.5 million, at least. I just wish it wasn't such a silly spectacle in doing the mundane in jump scares that might as well be a film where someone goes "BOO!" every so often. At that point, I'd rather have the little gore cheapie that could, because it will test patience in a less tiresome way. The second half may be weaker than the first, but that's mostly because if it is going to try and explain itself or delve into concluding itself with scares, it better accomplish something meaningful more than just a book report of how they spent their haunting. If one invests themselves into its carefully concocted family scare-show for 102 minutes, they may find something with some satisfaction in those moments to jump out in imagery. For me, it proves too mild and too late to build its mood to a rightful enjoyment worth more than one viewing for those who prefer to see a bit more fight in their horror times.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.