Change Your Image
Siegfried_Eracktor
Reviews
Road Kill (1999)
Strangely likable...
Alex, an unsuccessful film student, sees the chance of his life when he learns that Blue, the attractive woman who moves next door, is a professional contract killer. He has the idea of making a documentary on Blue and her professional occupation and persuades her to take him and his neurotic room mate/sound assistant Lars on a road trip across the country to Miami, where she has to eliminate her last target.
There are quite a few things that are wrong with Road Kill. First of all, you see the budgetary constraints on every corner - boring locations, boring and sometimes quite poor editing, horrendous sound - during the numerous car scenes, the sound of the road is sometimes actually louder than the voices of the actors. There is only one real action scene, and it's staged pretty poorly.
But the biggest flaw of the movie is how extremely unrealistic it is. Sure, I shouldn't have high expectations in that department from a low budget movie about a hit woman and a film buff, and I don't. But the amount of the suspension of disbelief demanded by Road Kill is too great even for a tolerant film viewer like me. So this cold blooded professional assassin is so professional that she tells a complete stranger everything about her job after a couple of beers? And then, seemingly out of utter boredom, says yes when he wants to film her on her way to her next target AND actually killing the guy? She even buys extra bulletproof vests for Alex and Lars! What's in it for her? How does she expect to be made unrecognizable in Alex's cheap, low budget documentary, when she is in every frame of it, speaking about pretty much everything from her life? What would her employers think about that? And how can Alex release his documentary without being confronted with the accusation of being an accessory to several murders? The other problem is that Blue's character itself is completely unbelievable. I just didn't buy, even for a second, that she is a ruthless, cold blooded assassin. That's not even Jennifer Rubin's fault, really - she obviously had to fight with her underwritten character, but I actually really liked her performance. Overall, the actors' performances is where the movie actually redeems, at least partially, some of it's faults. I was pleasantly surprised by Eric Palladino and Billy Jane as Alex and Lars respectively, because, while playing utter cliché characters, they managed to make me care for them and were never annoying (which is often a problem with low budget movies about some students/geeks/losers).
As mentioned before, this movie doesn't have many action scenes, and the one that is there isn't very impressive. But it compensates with a couple of really memorable scenes that are full with pretty dark humor - the best example is the extended bar scene, where the barkeeper serves tequila with torn off human toes in it. The short appearances of Tony Denison are also very entertaining. And of course there is the scene, where Alex runs out of film just in the exact moment of culmination of his documentary - Blue killing her target - so he frantically stages the murder with the already dead man. This is also the point where the movie comes the nearest to being a satire in the vein of such films as "Man Bites Dog" (which has a similar story), certainly never being nearly as intense. One can't help but think that there is a lot of missed potential here, because the question of Alex's implicit involvement in Blue's murders just through his presence and his filming is only scratched at on the surface. Thus, this movie won't leave you thinking about it for days, it won't shock you as "Man Bites Dog" may. But despite all its numerous flaws, Road Kill manages with the help of nice acting performances and some memorable scenes to be quite entertaining and... strangely likable.
The Hills Have Eyes (1977)
Technically not as good as the remake, but very interesting...
Having first seen the great (though not perfect) remake made by Alexandre Aja, I really was interested in seeing the original. Of course, being a fan of horror movies, and of Wes Craven's movies in particular, I was aware of THHE, but I've always heard, that this is just a really mediocre movie, and that it was surprising, that the remake, while taking he same premise, has managed to become a really good film. Now, after finally having seen the original, I have to say - everything I've heard about it and its mediocrity is true. And yet...
First of all, let me say that the original and the remake are indeed very similar. The characters of the Carter family are the same, the basic premise is the same, indeed the whole first half of both versions is pretty much identical. The big differences appear in the second half of both movies, and that's where the original THHE begins to be interesting. Now, don't get me wrong - Aja's remake is far superior, and not only because of the much better technical execution and the bigger budget. But the original had some really great ideas, that were dropped for the remake, and while I appreciate Aja's more complex story development and its darkly satirical, almost political context, I really think that Craven's also very dark and satirical, but also more anthropological approach to his movie made it at its core more disturbing, but also more believable.
Craven's Carter family isn't as likable as the one in Aja's remake, so when their lives finally are in danger, the audience doesn't connect to them on the emotional level as much as with Aja's characters. But, on the other side, they are the more realistic family. An other important difference between the two versions of THHE are the villains. While in the remake the Carters are fighting against a bunch of mutated individuals, who just happened to live in the same city, the villains in the original are clearly shown as a degenerated FAMILY. And that is a really very interesting approach, which is completely lost in the newer film. In Craven's movie, there are two families, one the mirror image of the other, and both have the same goal - to fight for their survival. They have even more in common, but it's subtle - after viewing this movie and thinking about the two families I've noticed that they weren't that different from the start. That's why the Carter's are not as likable as in Aja's remake - Craven didn't want to just show some good people fighting against some bad people, but to further the commonness of the both sides. He shows us, that the capability and the willingness to become extremely violent is in every person and even more - it's a part of human nature in itself. Unlike many vigilante movies,and also Aja's remake, the original THHE is extremely pessimistic about this subject. That's why the last picture of the movie is a freeze frame of Doug furiously stabbing Mars - there is no redeeming for Doug for this killing, except his will to survive and protect his beloved ones - he has become not more than a desperate animal. The question that follows, is: Was he, or a human being in general for that matter, ever more than a desperate animal? Is the "good", civilized, suburban Carter family really that different from the degenerated desert freaks they have the misfortune to encounter? The only real difference between them appears to be the protective shell of civilization, which is quickly stripped off the Carters, once they are lost and alone in the desert.
Now one could argue that Aja's movie achieves the same effect and provokes the same thoughts - but there IS a fundamental difference. Aja doesn't show Doug who becomes a monster, as does Craven, but Doug who becomes a HERO through becoming a monster. And after all the brutal killings that Doug is responsible of, he returns to the remains of his family as a hero and is looking forward to live on his civilized life. Essentially, Aja's movie shows an extraordinary development of an ordinary guy in an extreme situation. Craven shows us, that there is nothing too extraordinary about it - violence is a part of our nature. That's why his movie is more disturbing, and also more interesting than the remake, when it comes to the subject matter. But I can't deny the sheer visceral impact Aja's remake and its great technical execution made on me. After all is said and done, the newer film is the better one. It benefits from the beautiful work of the cameraman and overall from the higher budget. But I can't discard Craven's original because I can't help but think that this movie made (maybe even unintentionally) an interesting and provocative statement about the human beings, and it's a great pity that Wes Craven hadn't more money and also experience as a director to make his movie the definitive The Hills Have Eyes.
Jason X (2001)
Surprisingly good!
This film really surprised me in a good way! I mean, okay, the story is pretty dull (Jason is now in space and becomes a half-robot), but - Friday the 13th movies have never been something for the intelligent among us, have they? In fact, Jason X is much better than the most of its predecessors. The actors aren't really good - but, on the other hand, they're a way better than the actors from, say, "Friday the 13th 4". The effects are really cool, especially the splatter effects (at best on the Europian DVD (NC-17 rating!). But the best thing about this film is the humor: There are lots of references to the earlier FT13th films (just watch the Virtual Reality scene near the end - hilarious!) and some funny dialogues. All in all, much more worth watching it than the most of us horror fans have expected.