The latest horror films Saw 3D and Paranormal Activity 2 were scaring up some big numbers at the box office this month. Both low budget pics reigned, with Saw 3D estimating a $24 mil take on its first weekend, and the meager 3 million budgeted Paranormal Activity 2 raking in an impressive $65 mil.
But the reviews for Saw 3D are horrific, some calling it the worst of the seven part installment. Paranormal seems to be satisfying appetites, but plenty of reviews suggest that this pic only offers a semblance of scariness. It seems studios are failing to satisfy the appetites of true horror enthusiasts.
Sure, modern horror directors certainly have mastered the ability to jolt audiences out of their seats with a scary noise or a quick image of something frightening. But true horror gurus will tell you that those cheap parlor tricks aren’t what horror is about. True horror is in the unnatural premise that makes you shudder at the mere prospect of the scares to come. It's in the concept.
I decided to comb through the pantheon of horror films, searching for a true top ten of horror. Crack My Story's contenders listed below made the cut for three necessary ingredients.
1)A truly bone-chilling concept. The best premises take the true nature of what scares us emotionally and psychologically and manifest it before our very eyes. Sure ghosts and monsters are scary, but not as scary as a primal, unnatural situation.
2)A mastery of the scare. It's an artform to build tension and make us bite our nails until we find ourselves leaping from our seats. Plenty of older horror classics or landmarks horror films fail to build the scares necessary to satisfy modern audiences.
3)Gritty realism and appropriate genre. Some put thrillers like The Silence of the Lambs, Seven or Psycho on their lists, but it must be a true horror film to make it on board. And horror can often combined with camp and comedy, from the Evil Dead trilogy to the Scream franchise, but this lack of utter realism fails to deliver true fright.
Crack My Story’s
Top Ten Scariest Horror Films
1. The Shining (1980)
Watching over a haunted hotel for the winter, novelist Jack Nicholson experiences "all work and no play" and turns on his family in a possessed crazy murderous rampage. Providing some of the creepiest and scariest images in horror, this masterpiece explores one of the darkest premises of all time: what if your loved one turned on you and tried to kill you? Stephen King's The Shining combines horror subgenres: monster, haunted house, psychological, and slasher. Plus Stanley Kubrick’s cinematography and editing, along with that chilling score, puts us into a true spell of fright.
2. Exorcist (1973)
Two priests must battle a demonic force in the battle for a little girl’s soul in The Exorcist. William Friedkin’s religiously-charged masterpiece has been called one of the scariest movies of all time, delivering a premise that can frighten even the most nonreligious person. It's hard not to flinch watching the demonic forces corrupt twelve year old Regan in unnatural ways. The horror doesn’t just come from the eerie mood or the graphic images, but the fear that evil knows no bounds, and even an innocent girl can be turned into a force of evil.
3. A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
What separates the Nightmare franchise from the other scary slasher films out there is it’s terrible premise. What if horror awaited you in your dreams and you couldn’t stop from falling asleep? In this Wes Craven classic, a demonic killer with blades for fingers stalks five teenagers in their dreams. It taps into a visceral fear of our nightmares, a world in which we cannot control what happens to us. It's this element that takes Freddy Kruger to the top of all slasher villains.
4. Alien (1979)
Ridley Scott combines science fiction, suspense and action into his monster classic, Alien, about a spaceship screw who stumble upon a stranded vessel that has been overrun by predatory aliens. There have been plenty of monster movies, but Aliens explored a genetically superior monster that made human beings the prey in the most primal of ways. With fantastic suspense and amazing scares, audiences can’t help but be on the edge of their seats rooting for Sigorney Weaver to escape in time.
5. Jaws (1975)
Spielberg’s summer blockbuster about a Sheriff who finds his beach community terrorized by a monster great white shark might seem light in tone and the most “popcorn” of our horror list, but this movie was so scary that audiences refused to go into the ocean during the summer of '75. Jaws tapped into something visceral about own of humanity’s greatest predators: sharks. We are helpless in the water. And that fear is something everyone relates to.
6. Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)
Critics may commend documentary horror styles today, but Tobe Hooper was already mastering this gritty technique in this next low budget pic about a group of teenagers who stop at the wrong farm and encounter a chainsaw wielding family of cannibals. Plenty of movies have tapped into our fear of the uncivilized man out in the country, from The Hills Have Eyes to Deliverance, but none have elevated this fear more than Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which claims to be based on true events.
7. The Omen (1976)
For any parent, one of the greatest fears one could have is the fear of your own child. But that’s just what befalls an American diplomat and his wife, when their son turns out to be marked with the sign of Satan: 666. Richard Donner explores this religious monster movie in which the monster is a little boy who is the anti-christ and tries to kill his mother. It’s unnatural for young children to be so murderous, and that's why The Omen is so terrifying. Of all the evil children movies, The Omen rules the roost.
8. The Birds (1963)
The master himself, Alfred Hitchcock, has made countless psychological horror and thriller masterpieces, but none deliver such a horrific notion as does The Birds, in which a flock of birds attacks the people of a small town. There are some dated elements and the novel story isn’t perfect, but this inventive premise truly makes us shudder at something we never saw coming. And of course, the suspense in Hitchcock fashion couldn’t be better, always focusing more on the threat of the attacks than graphic violence.
9. Misery (1990)
The topic of Misery appears to be more relevant than ever: a look a fanaticism and notoriety when taken to horrific levels. Seeped in realism, Stephen King does what he does best in a story about a romance novelist rescued by an insane reclusive fan (Kathy Bates), only to be tormented and tortured to write his next novel in her vision. It’s a frightening tale of entrapment, and director Rob Reiner builds several amazing suspense sequences that define fear. Along with an amazing performance by Bates, it’s psychological horror at its best when fanaticism is taken too far.
10. Carrie (1976)
If our list were to go on, it would no doubt contain much more of Stephen King, from It, Pet Sematary, The Stand, Children of the Corn, and many more. But Carrie stands out with a revenge story of a tormented young girl who lashes out with demonic powers to fight back against her bullies during their Prom. Brian DePalma's true resonance here stems from the issue of bullying combined with the mysteries of the teenager girls sexual awakening. With a creepy mother and a boiling cauldron of teen aggression, this movie has one of the best and scariest endings in the genre.
Some have been left off because while they epitomize horror, like Rosemary's Baby or the Thing, they lack the scares of some of the other winners. Others fall short in premise, such as The Blair Witch Project, The Ring, or The Grudge. But there just might be a candidate you think deserves to be on the list, and by all means, challenge me with your nomination. But before you do, ask yourself, does it contain these three horror necessities: A true horrific concept, real frightening scares, and genre appropriate-ness? That's what truly defines the timeless, scary, horror classics.
It’s Halloween time and the theatres are aghast with spooky films which confronts us with the fear of our own mortality. But amongst these pics, there’s an unlikely contender that’s exploring the same subject matter in a different way. The drama Hereafter explores the issue of life after death through three disparate characters who question their mortality and eventually cross paths to find their answers.
While Matt Damon leads Hereafter through thought-provoking questions of its complex subject matter, it’s receiving a critically mixed bag of reviews. And one of the biggest surprises:
We expect emotionally charged dramas from Eastwood, like the recent Invictus or Changeling, but Hereafter, a Halloween-released supernatural drama, almost raises the question:
Wait, Clint Eastwood directed this?
Eastwood likes to explore haunted characters in provocative landscapes, but this doesn’t feel like the typical Eastwood fodder. And unfortunately, that disconnect might be taking its toll. Hereafter is Eastwood’s lowest reviewed movie since Blood Work (2002).
A closer look reveals that despite a low box office showing this weekend of $12 million, this $50 million budgeted pic might actually make some bank in the long term. Both Invictus and Changeling, two other Eastwood directed (non-Eastwood acted) movies, with comparable $50 mil budgets, scored under $10 million in their opening weekends and went on to make over $110 million worldwide.
And heck, compared to other 2010 dramas, like Secretariat, The Kids Are All Right, and Extraordinary Measures, none of which went over $40 mil at the Box Office, Eastwood’s latest opus could enjoy a slow boil that delivers it to the head of the table.
There’s no denying the subject matter of death is a touchy one. But if well handled, audiences might be interested to see how Eastwood explores it. However this movie still falls short of classic Eastwood standards. People are going to see it, but only half leave satisfied. What’s the story here?
Well, the problem here is in the story-telling, specifically how it fails to deliver three necessary promises.
1. Who’s the movie about?
The poster shows Matt Damon surrounded by haunting blue, swirling light and behind him a beautiful woman with curly hair. We know from the trailer that Matt Damon can see dead people. So it must be a story about his struggle with his gift. Right? Well, that’s just one of three storylines the movie focuses on. This is one of those stories where three different characters all deal with the same thematic issue and then meet in the end and all find closure. And that’s not what we’re expecting. Which unfortunately leaves some of us disappointed.
2. What's the movie about?
It’s one of the most important rules for the theme. When dealing with that encompassing discussion behind the backdrop of the drama, the filmmakers must explore both sides of the argument. Otherwise the story can fall into a didacticism that threatens to make the story preachy and overly simplistic in the face of life’s greatest challenges.
A Few Good Men explores the complexity of right and wrong, when even after Tom Cruise proves these two soldiers were just following orders, they are found guilty because they didn’t protect the weak and do the right thing. The Hurt Locker shows both the fulfillments and failures that war has on our soldiers.
Now those who firmly believe in an afterlife and seek no meandering viewpoints might be pleased with Hereafter. There's an afterlife. You go there when you die. And Damon can communicate with the dead.
But for the rest of the audience, the one-sided way in which Hereafter handles the topic is disappointing. Mortality is anything but a simple issue. Even those whom believe in an afterlife will differ in their interpretations. But Eastwood and Morgan (screenwriter of The Last King of Scotland and The Queen), deliver a black and white approach and never entertain the issue from any other viewpoint.
We almost get frustrated at the characters for not quickly finding peace in such an obviously presented situation. Other times it seems silly how people in the afterlife are always so apologetic, selfless and aware. Hereafter lacks the poise and dimension that this subject matter deserved.
3. Where's the movie going?
The story opens with a French journalist, played by Cecile De France, who searches for answers after her near-death experience during the horrific Southeast Asian tsunami. Then an English boy, Marcus, loses his twin brother in a car accident and struggles to find peace at being alone. Finally we see Matt Damon, playing George, a psychic who can see dead people, but doesn’t want to practice his gift anymore. Three characters searching for clarity in the issue of death.
Now there’s a point in the beginning of any movie where you say to yourself, I know where this movie is going. But in Hereafter, the story coasts along without that direction because of one simple problem. How can such an abstract element as clarity over mortality be dramatized? It isn’t, and by the end of the film, two of the three storylines falls short of satisfying conclusions, especially Damon’s.
All in all, nobody can question Eastwood’s ability to craft moving moments, get amazing performances out of his actors, and craft very worthy films deserving of attention. But in Hereafter, it seems he failed to consider just how intricate his audiences view this touchy subject matter. Let’s hope in Eastwood delivers some more complexity in his next film, Hoover, a biopic with a cross-dressing Dicaprio as the CIA’s J Edgar Hoover.
Spawned from an MTV franchise, Jackass 3D is a movie about grown men pranking and hurting themselves in the most ludicrous, disgusting and painful ways imaginable.
How the hell did a movie like this become such a success? Are Johnny Knoxville and the other recognizable Jackasses really that popular? Is a kick in the balls worth that much Box Office revenue?
What’s the story here?!
Well, there is no story.
On the grand scale, this prankster pic has no story. There’s no order to the pranks, no rising tension, or larger dramatic question. There’s no character growth. In fact, the only thing that signifies a beginning and ending is Johnny Knoxville literally declaring the beginning and ending. Without it, we’d be pretty shocked if the credits started rolling.
Now Jackass always does a brilliant job of perfectly setting up the prank, executing with surprise and paying off with the fantastic conclusion. In this regard, ever prank is a story.
But if there is no real story, why does Paramount’s latest Jackass collaboration with MTV Films nearly double expectations? The 3D visual effect did help to inflate ticket prices and attract audiences, but that alone didn’t pull in the crowds. Piranha and other 3D flops are testament to the fickle limitations to the cinematic device.
And while some might think audiences want pure entertaining escapism, recent box office trends suggest the exact opposite, with the latest #1 B.O. openers including thought-provoking movies like The Social Network, the Town, the American, and Inception. The spectacle oriented Avatars, Clash of the Titans, and Alice and Wonderlands have faded to more complex autumn contenders.
So if the reason isn’t the 3D, the escapism, or the story, then what is it?
Well...it’s funny.
No, I mean, it’s hilarious.
And beyond that, we are starved for comedy. Starved.
Eliminating romantic comedies or action-adventure comedies (Date Night or Kick-Ass), here is a list of nationally-released, live-action comedies in the past year:
Get Him To The Greek, Easy A, Piranha, The Other Guys, Grown Ups, You Again, Vampires Suck, Scott Pilgrim vs the World, Hot Tub Time Machine, Cop Out, Dinner for Schumucks, Death at a Funeral, Why Did I Get Married Too?, The Spy Next Door, Furry Vengeance and Tooth Fairy.
How many of these comedies did you laugh out loud at?
With lackluster showings by formula-driven studio pics, comic filmmakers have been falling short, letting only a few exceptions, like the Hangover, Hot Tub Time Machine and Easy A get through the malaise.
Then Jackass comes along and doesn’t just deliver a kick to the balls. It gives a seminar on comedy, mastering 5 out of 7 types of humor, leaving out only romantic comedy and farce.
{SPOILER...if one could spoil it by talking about it}
Satire/Parody – The boys don’t just pelt their friend with paintballs. They go duck hunting, launching a feather-costumed Jackass off a giant inflatable balloon that sails him through the air while the other hunter-dressed Jackasses fire away. Santa Claus and his merry Elf climb a snowy pine before the tree is cut down and Santa is dropped to a painful crash. In each prank, they use satire to deliver the ordinary setup with a humorous take.
Screwball – While some prank setups use satire, others use the pure absurdity of the situation to sell the laugh. Trailer moments like heavyset Preston walking into the convenient story with his dog, only to have a mini doppleganger walk out to reclaim the dog. These setups capture imaginative takes on our ordinary world.
Black Comedy – This movie displays the dark musings of the human mind. Humor at the pain and misfortune of other people. It gets real when Bam Margera must face his greatest fear: snakes. And yet, it pushes past the horror and tells us it’s okay to laugh. Everyone will be fine in the end.
Slapstick – Yes, there are the whacks in the balls and slaps in the faces, which make this the lowest form of physical comedy. But these guys embellish slapstick in ways you have never seen before. Who thinks to try to blend into a background to avoid a charing bull? Or super glue two men together?
Gross Out – Whether Steve-o is being tossed in a port-a-potty by bungee cord to create a poo cocktail, or they are causing a vomit marathon by drinking sweat off the most obese Jackass in the crew, there is plenty of gross out humor here. Oh yes, the creativity is not ignored.
Jackass even brings a layer of anti-establishmentism to its ranks. After all, no respecting member of society would partake in such debauchery. But since we support the Jackasses, well then we can just go ahead and give a big middle finger to the establishment.
Ask yourself, what was the last comedy you saw that tapped into such comic diversity and made you feel like a badass for laughing so hard?
Jackass 3D's comedy is honest, its premises are simple (compared to some of the more concocted studio comedy situations), and its laughs are perfectly delivered.
And that’s why audiences are going to see Jackass 3D. Because it’s funny. And everyone who has seen a promo or a trailer can tell it's funny. They can tell they are going to laugh.
Studio comedies could learn a thing or two from the Jackass crew.
IMDB Starmeter ranks him the SECOND largest actor in the world, bigger than Johnny Depp, Leonardo Decaprio, and Tom Cruise, second only to Jesse Eisenberg off the success of the Social Network.
Shia Lebouf has grossed 1.638 billion dollars, the third youngest to gross over the 1.5 billion mark, next to Elijah Wood (Lord of the Rings) and Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter).
He’s been in mega movies, like Transformers 1&2, Eagle Eye, Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull, Disturbia, as well as his leading roles in his early works, The Greatest Game Ever Played, Holes, and the Battle of Shake Heights. He’s box office gold.
And if one were to average the Rottentomato scores of all the films Shia has been a lead in, they would get an average of 53%! There's little argument his movies are not considered great movies, widely criticized for their convoluted stories and mediocre story-telling. And his performances are not considered great performances, usually having him portray the same snarky, fast-talker in every movie.
And after the latest underwhelming Shia showing in the convoluted, Box office mediocre Wallstreet 2...
One starts to wonder: Why Shia Lebouf?
Why is he our biggest twenties-something action hero? What’s the story here?
Well, when we think of what’s required of an action hero, it's often an ordinary guy role. Ordinary guy, extraordinary adventure. That’s the common denominator in all of Shia’s movies.
And there are very few leading roles for the mid-twenties actor. One might think then that someone with more talent, better looks, or more experience might take these limited roles. But upon further examination, these assets actually seem to be limitations, and it’s the lack of these assets that explains why Shia has become the biggest young action star in Hollywood.
Most leading twenties actors break between the age of 18-22, and by looking at Shia’s competition, other actors between the age of 23-28 who have had 2 or more leading roles in studio movies, some patterns become apparent that indicate why Shia Lebouf succeeds.
The Already Knowns
Sometimes the early success can derail the mid-twenties track record. These already knowns don’t just break, they explode. Take Elijah Wood (Lord of the Rings), Tobey Maguire (Spider-man) or Hayden Chirstensen (Star Wars I-III). All three erupted on the scene with huge franchises and afterwards had hard times taking back their leading role status in box office biggies. And expect Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Robert Pattinson and even Taylor Lautner (Twilight), to be plagued by the same issue. It’s hard to be an ordinary man when you are so recognizable as that giant franchise character. Someone tell Andrew Garfield of the Social Network to think carefully about Spider-man.
Pretty Boys
Whether it’s a breakout role in a fantasy epic, like Christopher Egan (Eragon), or having huge success in a TV phenomenon, like Chace Crawford, Penn Badgley or Ed Westwick (Gossip Girl), there are plenty of pretty boys out there. When it’s time for them to step into leading roles, they steer toward romantic comedies or romances where they can trade on their looks, they tackle smaller dramas and thrillers to demonstrate their acting chops. When a hunky pretty boy does step from anonymity into an leading action role, it’s usually in the niche of buff, athletic, extraordinary action hero, like Channing Tatum (GI Joe) or Chris Hemsworth (Thor).
The Comedians
Actors like Jonah Hill, Michael Cera, Jay Baruchel, and all the other nerdy heroes out there suffer from one malady: their lack of rugged good looks. The ordinary guy in the action movies still has to be somewhat attractive. Sorry guys. But these nerdy-cute heroes have a niche they can mine. Comedy. These actors might grow into their look, but they spend most of their twenties going for laughs in comedies or action adventure comedies.
The Talented
Actors like Joseph Gordon Levitt or Emile Hirsch both started as TV kid actors, until they landed leading roles in indie films, The Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys and Mysterious Skin, respectively, which demonstrated their adult acting prowess and propelled them into the limelight. They were on the Leonardo Decaprio track. You see, talent like this can’t be wasted on action stunts. These actors find their way into other meaty roles, often in thrillers or dramas, occasionally comedies. They might do action movies later in their careers, but in their mid-twenties, they’re busy strutting their stuff. So don’t look for Jesse Eisenberg (The Social Network) in any upcoming action films. He’s on the talented list.
The Ordinary Guy
When we look at Shia, his path to our ordinary guy action hero is clear. He didn't fall into any of these types: overly attractive, talented, comedic. His career slowly grew and his first adult leading man role was in the thriller Disturbia. All these factors naturally put him into our last category: Ordinary Guy. There are two other actors that followed a similar track. Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, both ordinary joes who broke their careers not in a film franchise or TV hit, not on their looks or their comedy, but in the ordinary guy niche in the independent 1996 hit Good Will Hunting. Now they both play action heroes and have cleared the 1.5 billion lifetime box office gross.
Shia may not be the most amazing actor, but he’s fills a niche. When you look at the competition, there just aren’t many actors who have broken out in such a way where they are unattractive enough to avoid the romances and pretty boy roles, attractive enough to avoid the comedies, lucky enough to avoid a mega franchise and break out in a stand alone hit, and talented enough to be ordinary.
It’s going to be a runaway success, a social phenomenon, a $100 million dollar box office hit and an Academy Award contender.
But the most surprising thing is: there is no story.
Let me start by saying this. I like it. I do.
It’s some of the best filmmaking we’ll see this year.
In a movie with just talking heads, screenwriter Aaron Sorkin proves he’s king of the spoken word and gives a seminar in crisp, smart dialogue, especially in the opening exchange between Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) and his girlfriend (Rooney Mara). Filmmaker David Fincher directs with hypnotic style and seething, stunning cinematography.
The cast delivers riveting performances, from newcomer Andrew Garfield’s sensitive portrayal of Facebook co-creator Eduardo Saverin, musician-turned-actor Justin Timberlake’s swarmy performance of Napster’s Sean Parker, and the surprising tour de force of Jesse Eisenberg’s Mark Zuckerberg. And with a mesmerizing musical score, this movie exudes the mood of cool.
Yet, I walked out of the theatre feeling unfulfilled.
And that’s because of the movie’s unlikely protagonist.
Here’s a hint. It’s not Mark Zuckerberg.
{SPOILER ALERT}
If you’ve seen the movie, let me ask you. Who are you rooting for?
Are you rooting for the Winklevoss twins to prove Zuckerberg stole their idea? Are you rooting for Eduardo to prove Zuckerberg stabbed him in the back? Or are you hoping Zuckerberg will show some form of redemption for his crimes as a dickhead, by either recovering the one friend he had or proving that at least it was all worth it?
Well, if you are, none of that really gets a resolution. We don't learn the truth. We don't learn outcome of these lawsuits. We don't learn the fate of Eduardo and Zuckerberg. At the conclusion of the movie, as we wait for answers, Zuckerberg's lawyer (Rashida Jones) tells him, during a deposition break, you’ll pay these guys off, buy their silence, and this will all be a speed bump on the road of your success. And that's all we get. Drama over.
It could have been a story about Zuckerberg’s emergence as a ruthless CEO, but he ends the movie the same asshole he was from the beginning. It could have been about his seduction into business, but his ideals never really change. It could have been a story about his desperate need for attention, but once he's made Facebook, we never see him seek attention.
Sure, he starts Facemash to take his mind off a girl and he ends his nightly deposition looking to friend request that same girl. So the theme could have been that the nerds of the world can’t get chicks, so they go form billion dollar companies. It could have been that, but it’s not.
Zuckerberg’s movie goal is to protect Facebook. Not for attention or connection. He does it because he must. He follows his omniscient view of the future, pushing Facebook on its natural, almost predetermined course towards greatdom. But Zuckerberg shows no empathy, makes no decisions on screen, faces no dilemmas or dramas. It’s not his movie.
So who are we rooting for?
You see, every movie needs a hero (or villain) to root for. And at the end, that hero has to either succeed or fail. There must be resolution. But we get no resolution from Zuckerberg, Eduardo, or even the Winklevoss twins! With no resolution, we have no story!
So how can this successful and entertaining movie have no story?
How can it have no protagonist?
Well, actually, it does have a protagonist.
The protagonist is Facebook.
Aaron Sorkin admits this was a story about two lawsuits. Rather than pick a singular direction, they decided to tell all three points of view. That’s because they didn’t care about these other characters, you know, Zuckerberg and Eduardo. They’re just supporting actors to the real lead of the movie.
So how does the movie succeeds despite a human hero?
Because you know what’s cool. Facebook is cool...
It's a story about the rise of Facebook. We want Zuckerberg to defend Facebook from challengers who would impose advertising on it too soon. We want Zuckerberg to overcome these lawsuits that threaten to derail the creative power behind Facebook. We want Facebook to reach two continents, 100 schools, and 1 million members. Not for Zuckerberg’s sake, but for Facebook’s sake. We want Facebook to overcome all obstacles. We're rooting for Facebook.
The movie is a trip back to college. A snapshot into the geeky world of website programming, with creators who lord their intelligence over others, who get groupies, who party on the way to billionaire status. Who wouldn't want to come along for that ride? We're connecting with Facebook.
In reality, we all want to see where Facebook is going. We all want to participate in the evolution of this connecting phenomenon. And the movie is just another way to participate. This is why it succeeds.
This is the absent-minded genius of the Social Network filmmakers. In foolishly failing to give Zuckerberg a resolution at the end, the movie becomes about Facebook.
.jpg)
