Fantastic Fest '06 The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning

I know, I know, I said I was going to go see something else, but when I saw the New Line security team scanning people with metal detector wands and making people turn off their cell phones, I just had to get in on the fun.

I didn't really have any great expectations. I liked the original, but nothing else (remake included) really grabbed my attention. But this, wow. I mean, WOW. I haven't seen f'd-up family values like this since House of 1000 Corpses (and the Devil's Rejects as well).

I don't really want to give anything away, but suffice it to say, this totally blew the '03 remake out of the water. You don't waste much time on back story, although what's there is perfectly suited to the plot, and once the blood starts flowing it is incessant. Horror villains are always kinda like the Energizer Bunny of Doom, but this is brutal. Gore, gore and more galore. And some of it with that dark, sick, humorous variety that almost makes you want to laugh if you weren't so busy squirming in your seat. I have to say I'm with this guy (scroll to the bottom) in wondering who did what to whom to get this an R from the MPAA. (And after, the director told the audience that two of the goriest scenes were pretty well shaved to get it, hello, DVD!) I think it was the fact that there was no nudity.

There is a bear trap, meathooks, and, of course the chainsaw. But no nudity.

And here's the kicker. Leatherface doesn't become a major player until the almost the third act. The whole movie is driven by R. Lee Ermey, who is one of those quintessential, "Hey, It's That Guy!" types. Only now he's sick, demented, and he's just trying to care for his family. Awwww, it would be sweet if it weren't completely psychotic.

Famous last words:
Nothing will ever approach the original, just by the virtue of it being the original, but this comes damn close.

And to answer the burning question: Yes, you do find out where Leatherface got his leather face.

Fantastic Fest '06 Haze (with Oculus)

Oculus is an excellent example of the KISS principle. Keep It Simple, Stupid. One room, one man, one creepy-ass mirror. Clocking in at just over half an hour, it's long for a "short," but it really doesn't feel like it, as the plot unfolds at its own pace without feeling rushed. The director has paced the action/drama very well within the confines of this piece, and the actor does an excellent job of toe-ing the line between sanity and madness, right up until he crosses over it.

This piece is an excellent example of the never-ending struggle to rationalize the irrational or to prove the un-provable. It's a scientific study of a most unscientific event; and like all rational beings in the horror genre, the descent to madness comes when our protagonist's rational underpinnings are ripped out from underneath him and all he's left with is his fear. This is assuming our scientist isn't "mad" to begin with. After all, he's convinced the mirror killed his parents. But this is all theory, and let's move on...

The color palette (or in this case, complete lake thereof), works to create the clinical setting the protagonist desires for his experiment. It is clean, sterile, and away from outside influence. It is also cut-off, isolated, and completely without refuge. There are some technical sound issues, echoes and the like, but the usage of the clock alarms and phone rings add to the distortion of time and breakdown of the protagonist's awareness of anything but the mirror.

I have one major gripe with the short, and unfortunately it's somewhat linked to the ending. I'll try to keep this as general as possible, but it's still kinda spoilery. Throughout the piece the history of the mirror is relayed to the audience through a series of stories, people die, people disappear, people kill other people. Got that. Mirror bad. Check. The whole creepiness of the set-up is that no one really knows what the mirror does, and I think it should have stayed that way. Let me put it like this, the freakiest thing about The Blair Witch Project was that you never saw the witch. You saw things happen, you saw the campers freak out, but you never saw who/what was behind it. The scariest things are what we pull out of our own memories, and once you show the "monster," you're done. Glimpse it out of the corner of your eye, catch it's reflection, feel its breath on your neck, but in a piece like this, it's best left unseen. Once fear has a face and a name it's dimished. Which isn't to say that what we saw in the theatre wasn't creepy, believe me, it was, I just think it would have been much more effective in the abstract.

And speaking of abstract, let's move onto the main feature, Haze.

One part Saw, one part Cube, and Asian to boot. I should love this, but I don't. I was actually kinda disappointed. Don't get me wrong, it's creepy and claustrophobic as all hell. (I didn't immediately think, "It's the Habitrail(c) from Hell!" for nothing.) The monotone concrete walls with their blind turns, and a well-developed bleakness to the entire production design from costume to lighting adds to the paranoia and anxiety. The traps are vicious, but not entirely original. (Although I have to admit, there's one that set my teeth on edge and reminded me how long it's been since I went to the dentist.) But it seems to jump in continuity, and the ending leaves a great deal to be desired.

The concept is solid, a man wakes up with no memory, a nasty stomach wound, and only a series of trap-laden tunnels in front of him. But it's not very trap-laden, this movie is only about 50 minutes long, and that's not quite enough time to rachet up the tension to a point where the audience is squirming, anxious and desperate to know what's going to happen next. There's also a lack of exposition, which is normal for J-horror, but what we do get is mainly in a voice-over. That's not horrible, except for the fact that it is repeated almost verbatim 10-15 minutes later when the lead meets up with his fellow captive. Why have the V-O at all? And the ending...? I don't expect my horror movies to have rational endings, but I'd like to know that there is one. There's a mishmash of a montage that makes no sense of time, place, or even if it's relevant to the plot. Not cool.

Famous last words:
This may be the only time where I recommend a feature so you can see the short. Haze isn't entirely bad, but Oculus was better and worth the time.

Premier pick: Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip

I took me awhile, but a few years ago, I finally "got" Aaron Sorkin. I'm not saying it all made sense, or looked nice, or felt good, but I was there. I was with it, there, in the moment.

The show was The West Wing, and after a four-hour marathon, I was hooked. Unfortunately, it was his last season on the show, but after going back and seeing those first incredible seasons, I knew I had found a writer I would follow almost anywhere. Not an actor, or a concept, or a genre, but a writer.

So is it any surprise that as soon as I heard about Studio 60, I was waiting in rapt anticipation? Not really.
Is it any surprise that as soon as I found out you could get the pilot from Netflix it went to the top of my queue?
Again, not really.
Was I disappointed?
Not really.

Here's what I like about Sorkin. It doesn't have to be original material, but it sure feels that way sometimes. A Few Good Men- it's a courtroom drama, we've all seen it, but it twists and turns the definition of guilt and responsibility around and up until it hits the ceiling... and breaks through. The American President- a romance. Pretty cliche until you start adding the politics and image sculpting in. Relationships are hard, policy is harder, both can be impossible.

And while we're on policy and politics, let's look at that good 'ole West Wing. I have NEVER seen a show on the silver or small screens that has made politics look as hard and as easy as that show did. It was fast, it didn't grind to a halt every time something had to be explained, it kept moving and somehow we all kept up. It made you think, and didn't assume you're a child. We're not talking about programming for the lowest denominator and how many shows can say that today?

But let's move on to the focus of this post, shall we?

The premise is simple, a show with-in a show. This is simple. Get the show on the air, keep the show on the air. Period. End of story. Beginning of drama. We've seen it in sitcoms (Murphy Brown) we've seen it in drama (Network) and now we get to see it in both. Because like all TV a la Sorkin, there is plenty to laugh at in Studio 60, and more drama than you can shake your remote at. It's been said before, and I'm sure will be said again, but what Sorkin did for politics in The West Wing, he's doing for TV. Is he preaching? Um, yeah. If you've seen Judd Hirsh's on-air rant you catch on pretty quick, and to say that Sorkin and his co-exec and director Tommy Schlamme are bringing a little real-life baggage to the project is an understatement, but who said truth was any less strange or fascinating than fiction?

The casting. Ensemble, if we're banking on anything, we're banking on Sorkin's name, not the cast's. Not that they're nobodies. Timothy Busfield and Bradley Whitford are Sorkin vets, and any one who hasn't seen Friends and Matthew Perry during its run has been living in a world without TV for over a decade now and I can't help you. Stephen Weber is a solid actor, as are most of the others.

Our weak point here is going to be Amanda Peet. Not that she's bad, I think she just has the farthest to go. Her character's a hard one, the executive who's going to be the push and pull on the show. She's going to be defending the Whitford and Perry characters while trying to keep them from going too far at the same time, and that's not a easy feat to portray. And she's young, as her character is written, and that adds another level of difficulty. Do I think she can do it? Yeah, but I think she's going to need an episode or two to get the kinks ironed out. Also to watch: The characters who play the "Big Three," or the three lead actors on the show, D.L. Hughley, Sarah Paulson and Nathan Corddry. We didn't see much of them in the pilot, but they will have a huge influence on the upcoming plots as they seem to have a great deal of influence, if not outright pull with their fellow castmates and the network.

I'm hooked, and I'm OK with that. But I'm picky and I have very high expectations for this show, as do most of the critics I've read. It's a long fall... let's hope we don't go over the cliff.