Frakenweenie (2012)

I may be 72% adult, but 100% of me still loves animated children’s films.  Also, 94% of me loves Tim Burton, so there was a 97% chance of me going to see Frankenweenie in theatres.  Obviously with those odds I went and saw this movie, but not just in some every-man theatre, I watched Frankenweenie in IMAX 3D (overrated).  I remember seeing a preview for this over six months ago, and was immediately excited.  Tim Burton, stop motion, dogs, and classic horror movie throwbacks:  what more could a girl want?  I know Tim Burton can be a touchy subject for some film enthusiasts, particularly the pretentious self-indulgent ones.  However, the creator of films like Beetle Juice (1988), Sweeney Todd:  The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007), and Edward Scissor Hands (1990) is okay in my allegorical “book” and I will most likely be viewing anything he puts his name on.  Even if, like those pretentious self-indulgers, I am insanely jealous of his success as an auteur. 

                Frankenweenie follows the well-known construct of James Whale’s silent classic Frankenstein (1931), with elements of other early monster movies thrown in.  However, unlike Whale’s film, Frankenstein’s monster is young Victor’s dog Sparky, who meets his untimely end chasing a ball into the street.  Victor is traumatized after losing his best friend and uses his uncanny knowledge of science to bring Sparky back from the dead.  What follows is a fun a charming set of misadventures as Victor tries to keep Sparky under wraps.  Eventually Victor’s secret is uncovered, and he must join in with his classmates to save the town of New Holland from a slew of mutinous regenerated pets.  Think Pet Semetary meets Godzilla meets Creature from the Black Lagoon. 

                Overall, I felt as though Frankenweenie started out rather slowly.  I suppose this is fair, since introducing the characters and scenario is important, especially since this film is geared towards children who are most likely unfamiliar with the story.  About half-way through I felt the film picked up speed and became more original and entertaining.  I’m no softy, but for some reason animal films have a tendency to tear me up.  In Water for Elephants when the elephant gets beat?  I bawled.  Apparently animated animal films are no different.  Perhaps it’s because I’ve suffered the loss of a cherished pet, but watching Sparky die (again) was a tear-jerker.  I’ll admit it.  You kill an animal, I’m gonna cry.   Even one made out of clay. 

Bela Lugosi as Count Dracula.  Dracula (1931)

                My favorite aspect of this film was Burton’s homage to classic monster movies.  Victor Frankenstein = Henry Frankenstein; Edgar E. Gore = Igor; Mr. Rzykruski = Count Dracula (Bela Lugosi edition); Nassor = Frankenstein’s Monster (Boris Karloff edition); and Persephone = The Bride of Frakenstein (1935), just to name a few.  Godzilla the turtle version makes an appearance, as does the trademark windmill and The Mummy.  This makes the movie a fun seek-and-find for those familiar with these classic films. 

Mr. Rzykruski.  Frankenweenie (2012)

                Overall, I approve of Frankenweenie.  Although it’s not my favorite Burton film, it’s still fun, funny, cute, touching, and a work of art.  It’s an excellent film that adults and children can easily enjoy together, especially during this spooky month.

Fin.

Sinister (2012) *spoilers*

Bugs are delicious.  The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)

My adoration of horror began when I was quite young and I found the film E.T.:  The Extraterrestrial the most terrifying thing to be born into existence.  From there my tastes matured and I became an avid viewer of Are You Afraid of the Dark at the ripe age of seven.  My friend and I secretly rented Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer from our local convenience store and were subsequently grounded when my mother found out.  My slightly more grown-up self is no different.  I will view virtually every scary film to occupy theatres or inhabit my Netflix suggestions.  So, upon seeing the trailer for Scott Derrickson’s film Sinister, I was skeptically optimistic.  Although giggle-inducing on occasion, I enjoyed The Exorcism of Emily Rose well enough to buy the five-dollar bargain-bin DVD, so I hoped Sinister would be at least on par with that.

Now, as I mentioned, I love horror movies, although they often tend to disappoint me.  Insidious (2010) is a fine example of a film that was spooky and engrossing up until the last 20 minutes which I can sum up with a resounding “What the fuck?”  Or how about the Australian film Lake Mungo (2009)?  Talk about a waste of 87 minutes.  I’ve been more creeped out by episodes of “A Haunting.”  Sure it had its 60 seconds of spooky images, but that’s cumulative throughout the entire film.  But, that’s not what I’m here to discuss (thank goodness).  I’m here to talk about Sinister; a film which I’d describe as a satisfying and hair-raising horror which rises above its gory “vanilla” peers.

Shot composition like a boss. Sinister (2012)

To sum it up, Sinister is the tale of Ellison (Ethan Hawke), a true-crime writer struggling to reclaim his 15 minutes of fame, who after moving into a new home with his family finds reels of home videos depicting the gruesome murders of families.  Does Ellison turn these tapes into the cops?  God, no!  However, instead of throwing popcorn at our protagonist, we get it.  He wants to write a kick-ass book.  Doesn’t everyone?  So he keeps these films and reviews them over and over again.  These videos were incorporated into the overall film in a way that I found to be bordering on excellent.  The content of these films was disturbing, but the filmmakers did something I love:  they didn’t spoon-feed the audience the violence.  Subtlety in filmmaking is so often overlooked, especially in horror.  If a family gets mowed over with a lawnmower, we don’t need to SEE it.  If a family has their throats slit, seeing it reflected in Ellison’s glasses is a much more artistic and tasteful way of displaying something no one really wants to see.  Unless you’re f’ed in the head.  Speaking of f’ed up junk, how about that creepy-ass jack-o-lantern looking dude that Ellison finds lurking in the background of the clips?

I love the supernatural.  Hell, I love “Supernatural.”  So I’m all about a movie with a paranormal element.  Sinister includes this in a way that I think is great.  It’s there, it’s scary, and yet the film remains believable.  If the supernatural element had been stripped away, the film would still have been able to stand based on the fact that “that shit could happen!”  However, adding that little preternatural element leaves the audience with a comforting feeling of “oh, the Bughuul isn’t real so I can sleep easy at night.”  Wrong!  Kids can still kill people without the nurturing guidance of Mr. Boogie.  Eric Smith?  Joshua Phillips?  Mary Bell?  Or maybe those kids had Mr. Boogie’s hand on their shoulders as well?  The Bughuul may have simply been an occult-based construct of Mr. Derrickson, but in my opinion he does exist.  He is evil incarnate.  He is that intangible darkness that inexplicably dwells within certain individuals and drives them to do horrific and unforgivable things.  And that’s why I love Sinister.

Oh, God shallow-focus, what's back there?!  Sinister (2012)

Now, to the scare-factor.  Sinister, although it contained the generic “boo!” factor, as I’ll call it, did very well in creeping me out.  Not an easy task.  Ethan Hawke definitely contributed to this.  His deterioration into being totally freaked out by the stuff happening in his new house is totally believable.  I never got pissed at him or felt the need to yell at the screen because he was being an idiot.  He acted like a genuinely scared-shitless guy.  No unbelievable bravado or dismissal of the freaky events.  He wasn’t perfect, but was imperfect in human-like way.  In addition to Mr. Hawke, the cinematography was quite exceptional, especially when my expectations are so low for a horror flick.  The use of a shallow depth of field and hand-held camera were an excellent decision.  Normally I can’t stand handheld camera, because I prefer to not have to keep one eye closed to avoid a headache.  However, Sinister used the handheld in a way that contributed to the film.  More than once the character(s) was taking up a small portion of the frame with the background out of focus.  The handheld camera swayed in a way that made small portions of the background go in and out of frame.  The entire time, I was waiting for Mr. Boogie or some freaky-ass little kid to be out of focus and in frame on one of the sways.  It never happened, but it gave intensity to the film that wasn’t distracting.  Thank you filmmakers for showing that just because a film is a horror film, doesn’t mean attention shouldn’t be paid to cinematic technique.  Special effects only get you so far.

Overall, if you enjoy scary movies, pay money to watch Sinister.  I’m just so excited to have seen a horror flick in a theatre that didn't make me leave pissed off or confused.  So, although it may not be The Shining (1980), it’s definitely up there on some imaginary list of horror movies that pack a punch and are worth your time.

Fin.