A Case You Hadn't Noticed

Originally scheduled for US release way back in August of '08, it's been a long, trying journey for Case 39. But here we are in October of '10 with the supernatural shocks of director Christian Alvart's tale finally up on the big screen. That minor victory aside, things haven't been working out so well in Hollywood for the German director. He made a great impression on his home turf with the 2005 serial killer thriller Antibodies but in the US, his two films to date - Case 39 and last year's Pandorum - haven't received much acclaim or brought in much business. I hope studios will keep giving him more chances, though, because he's good. Pandorum was one of my favorite genre offerings from last year - a really strong, atmospheric sci-fi horror pic like we haven't seen in ages. And now Case 39 (which was filmed prior to Pandorum) is a better film than its reputation would lead you to believe.

That's not to say that Case 39 is a misunderstood gem or anything. It's kind of a mess, really, but it's a better mess than I expected. Written by Ray Wright, who had a hand in the recent Crazies remake, Case 39 has an intriguing first half and a silly but still highly watchable second half. When social worker Emily Jenkins (Renee Zellweger) is assigned a case involving a ten-year-old named Lilith Sullivan (Jodelle Ferland, of Silent Hill) whose parents are clearly a pair of nuts, Emily makes it her mission to protect Lilith and get her out of that home. At first, bureaucracy and the Sullivan's wily ways keep Lilith out of Emily's reach but when the Sullivans try to actually roast Lilith in an oven (!), Emily is there to put a stop to it.

Rather than put Lilith in a state-run home until a foster family can adopt her, Emily puts on her mommy shoes to take her in as her temporary caretaker. That's a nice gesture but a big mistake, as it turns out, because Lilith is some kind of demon or something. Whatever Lilith really is, Emily lives to regret being conned by this hell spawn's innocent act. Before long, Emily is secretly paying visits to Lilith's parents in the psycho ward just to get the full story on what she's dealing with. Can Emily's psychologist friend (Bradley Cooper) or her cop buddy (Ian McShane) be any help? The odds don't look favorable.

Evil kid movies live or die on the strength of the performance of the kid and happily for Case 39, Ferland plays Lilith just right. Unfortunately, a lot of people will likely see Ferland as playing a knock-off of Isabelle Fuhrman's performance in last year's instant cult favorite Orphan without knowing that Case 39 actually predated Orphan. Ferland doesn't have as complicated a character to play as Fuhrman did but she does a great job anyhow.

The most curious aspect of Case 39 is the lack of explanation - supernatural, scientific, or otherwise - regarding Lilith's origins. Most monster or demon movies make a point to name their creature and give them a cooked-up mythology of some kind. Because that mythology is how the film's characters know how to stop it - whether it's going to be a wooden stake, a silver bullet, an exorcism, or whatever. Is Lilith deep down a good girl who's been possessed by a demon? That'd be an expected way to go. That way, Emily could purge the demon from Lilith's body and live happily ever after with the real Emily. Is Lilith some kind of alien, maybe? A shape-shifter? We don't know. We never know. There's not even any educated guesses thrown around. More than anything else, I think this is going to keep audiences from enjoying Case 39. Too much ambiguity, too many unanswered questions.

From a dramatic standpoint, the lack of revelations about Lilith make it hard for Case 39 to build to a rousing third-act climax. There's no exorcism to perform, no incantation to say, no mystical dagger to use. Once Emily knows that Lilith is truly evil, it's just a matter of taking her out but yet the proper manner of accomplishing that is never known. Emily is forced to go improv with her child-killing skills and try whatever seems deadly enough until something sticks and Lilith doesn't get back up again.

Having expected the worst from Case 39 and finding it to be...not that bad, I don't know what kept this one out of theaters for two years - maybe the studio just thought it sucked that hard. But that hasn't stopped other movies from making their release dates so Case 39 should've been given a break, too. Alvart has the skills to make a good horror movie and he makes the most out of Case 39. I liked that this was, at heart, a horror movie about how parents can feel held hostage by their children. There's been plenty of killer kid movies over the years but they usually take the approach that the people around the parents keep figuring out what's up with the kid - and getting killed for it - while the parents remain oblivious until the last act. Here, it's the parent that is clued in but everyone else thinks they're crazy for suggesting that their kid is evil.

I wonder if this is why the studio was so reluctant to get behind Case 39 - that they felt it was too hard to sell a movie about an adoptive mother who wants to kill her kid. All the ads for the movie make it look as though Lilith is being pursued by demons and that Emily is trying to protect her, not that Lilith is evil herself. In fact, I think there was material shot just for the trailer to give the impression that Emily and Lilith are under attack - we see them cowering in a corner together, hiding under a bed - because I'm telling you that no scenes like that are in the film itself. There's also a glimpse of a demon (check out the 1:42 mark) and a scene of Lilith being sucked into her bed that aren't in the final film. Check it out:



This trailer is completely deceptive and I'm not sure why the studio went that route. One of the strongest aspects of the movie is Ferland's performance - why keep it a secret that she's the villain of the film? Orphan did so well for Warner Bros. last year on the strength of its ad campaign that featured the evil Esther front and center. Then again, that same campaign also drew a lot of heat from adoption agencies who claimed the movie put adoption in a bad light.

I bet Paramount feared that another film about another evil adoptive child would've gotten the same kind of flak and chose to sell Case 39 as an entirely different movie than what they had. It's too bad. Case 39 still might not have been a hit but it should've been sold for what it really is. As is, what we have is a cinematic case of false identity.

Shadow Of The Vampire

The fact that a new vampire film is in theaters that isn't part of the Twilight saga ought to be cause for celebration. But for many it's a problem that Let Me In - a remake of the 2008 Swedish film, Let The Right One In - exists. After all, Let The Right One In is a very recent film - not some dated classic. And if people were not so reluctant to read words at the bottom of the screen, one of the best genre films in recent memory would not need to be retold.

All this is true. In a perfect world, studios would look at a movie like Let The Right One In and say "man, we'd be assholes to try and touch this." And in a perfect world, there'd be no hesitation on the part of the average moviegoer to sample foreign fare. But we don't live in that perfect world. If Let Me In introduces a wider audience to a great story, then I don't see the need to disparage it as a matter of principle. When the remake is atrocious, as in the case of Pulse (2006), the abomination masquerading as a remake of Kairo (2001), then yes - that's bad. But when the remake is as finely made as Let Me In, then why be high-handed about it?

While Let Me In does nothing to eclipse the artistry of Let The Right One In, writer/director Matt Reeves has attentively preserved the tone of the original. It's still a melancholy look at a lonely, bullied kid who finds a lifeline in the form of a vampire. Only now instead of Oskar (Kare Hedebrant) and Eli (Lina Leandersson), it's Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) and Abby (Chloe Moretz) who develop a strange, sad bond. And instead of taking place in Stockholm, we're in New Mexico. It's still 1983, though, and it's still in the dead of winter.

The major story beats and set-pieces are all pretty much the same as in director Tomas Alfredson's film - even down to the way they're staged. But it feels as though Reeves is honoring Alfredson's work rather than just mimicking it. Reeves does bring in some new scenes and tweaks a few existing ones. He also prunes some of the extraneous story elements from the original, making for a more efficiently told tale. From the start, there's a palatable sense that Reeves "gets" the original - and its source material novel - and that in his hands, Let Me In was never in danger of becoming the movie that fans feared it might be.

However, there are some ways in which the remake just can't compete. As strong as the child performances are here, it's difficult for Smit-McPhee and Moretz to surpass the work that Hedebrant and Leandersson did in the original. Those two kids - Leandersson, especially - just had a look and vibe that can't be duplicated. Smit-McPhee and Moretz are outstanding but as you watch them, you're looking at actors. Skilled actors, yes, but still actors. There's an inevitable (if faint) air of Hollywood to Let Me In. When you watch Leandersson as Eli, you easily buy into the reality that this girl (or whatever) is a vampire. With Moretz, you're seeing Hit-Girl as a vampire. That's not enough to derail Let Me In but it's one reason why it can never have the unique mystique that the original does.

Let Me In is also less enigmatic than the original, with Reeves choosing to be more explicit about the relationship between Abby and her caretaker (Richard Jenkins) than Alfredson and novelist/screenwriter John Ajvide Lindqvist were about the relationship between Eli and her caretaker (Per Ragnar). I thought that this tragic pairing of young and old (or rather old and very old) was one of the eeriest and most affecting aspects of the original but it wasn't clear to every viewer what the nature of that relationship was (was this man Eli's father, or perhaps a pedophile?). By including an old film strip from a photo booth capturing Abby side by side with her guardian when he was just a boy himself, Reeves confirms that this person came into Abby's life decades earlier and has grown old as Abby's protector. Now the cycle is starting over with Owen.

There's so much that's wise about Let Me In that it's glaring when Reeves makes a bad decision. The single poorest choice on Reeves' part was to depict several of Abby's attacks and her gravity-defying movements through CG. It looks silly and I can't believe anyone connected with the movie thought it was the right way to go. It only occurs a few times but it's a few times too many. A secondary issue with the use of CG is that it makes Abby appear so capable and deadly that it makes us question why she would need someone to hunt for her. If Abby is so ferocious - moving like a Reaper from Blade II - then a companion doesn't seem so essential. And if we question Abby's need for a companion too strongly, that could derail the entire movie. After all, as with the original, Let Me In really isn't a love story. It's about Abby choosing someone that will serve as her protector and guardian. Reeves should've been more aware of the problems he was potentially creating before deciding to invite CG in.

Some slight missteps aside, though, fans of the original who wanted to guard a film they loved from the machinations of Hollywood should be relieved that Let Me In has emerged as a smart, sensitive movie. That it exists in the shadow of a better film shouldn't discount the excellent work that Reeves and his collaborators have done.

All Eyes On October

For horror fans, the turning of the calendar to October is always cause for celebration but I'm especially enthused this year because I believe this October is going to set the pace for all future Octobers. At the very least, I'm certain that this October will be the October that next October will be judged by. I'm not necessarily excited for everything that's scheduled to be released over the next month, but I am excited that there's so much to choose from. At a glance, here's what's headed our way during the next 31 days, starting tomorrow:

Let Me In (1st)

Advance word says that this will be one of those remakes that gives remakes a good name. I hated Cloverfield (2008) but I hope director Matt Reeves made a terrific movie here. And I love that this signals the return of Hammer Films to the big screen.




Hatchet II (limited, 1st)

The first Hatchet did nothing for me but I'm glad for its fans that the second one is coming to theaters unrated.




Case 39 (1st)


It's pretty much a certainty that this will be awful because everywhere else in the world where it's already been released the word is brutal but I think it looks like an enjoyably trashy supernatural shocker. I really liked Pandorum (2009) so I'm hoping that director Christian Alvart pulled off a few good moment here, at least.




My Soul To Take (8th)

A new, original Wes Craven movie on the big screen? How can that not be a welcome thing? I'm pulling for My Soul To Take to be a solid return for Craven and a hit to boot.

I Spit On Your Grave (limited, 8th)


Not my cup of rape but for those who are interested, the reviews say that you'll get what you came for and then some.

Night of the Demons (19th, DVD/Blu-Ray)

A cheesy, tongue-in-cheek remake of a cheesy, tongue-in-cheek '80s horror movie? Sounds like acceptable Halloween entertainment to me.

The Psycho Legacy (19th, DVD/Blu-Ray)

As a fan of all four Psycho movies, I've been excited about this project since the moment it was announced. Can't wait to see how it came out! Hopefully some love with be shown to the underrated Psycho III!




Paranormal Activity 2 (22nd)

I really hope the makers of Paranormal Activity 2 took the lessons of Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 (2000) to heart. I'd love to see this be a worthy sequel to last year's surprise hit but catching lightening in a bottle twice is next to impossible.




Monsters (29th, Limited Release)

I have a feeling I'll have to wait till DVD on this one but it looks interesting. Any time low budget filmmakers attempt a monster movie rather than a slasher or a zombie movie, I think that's great.

Saw 3D (29th)

The Saw series has produced maybe two good movies during its run - and that's being kind. That said, although I usually dread the arrival of the latest Saw installment, with the series wrapping up (only temporarily, I'm sure) I'm feeling in a magnanimous mood towards the highest-grossing horror franchise of all time. If nothing else, its gloriously goofy trailer gets my nod as favorite of the year so far:

The Walking Dead (AMC, 31st)

A case of "saving the best for last" as the Halloween premiere of this comic book adaptation looks like the most promising horror offering of the month. The comic itself has never felt like more than warmed-over Romero to me but I have faith in Frank Darabont to improve on the source material. If nothing else, the grisly Greg Nicotero-created zombies are going to be sweet to behold.




To all of the above, add Hammer Horror all month long on TCM! It's an October so packed, Halloween will be almost anti-climatic!

The Dying Dream Of John Matrix

Eleven hours: that's the time that retired Special Forces operative John Matrix has to locate and rescue his young daughter Jenny from her kidnappers before they get wise to the fact that this legendary bad-ass and gigantic motherfucker has bailed on the assassination mission that they've sent him on. It's an impossible time table but if anyone can pull it off, it's Matrix - a man so tough he eats Green Berets for breakfast.

Anyone who knows '80s action cinema is familiar with the tale of John Matrix, played to a muscle-bound "T" by Arnold Schwarzenegger in the classic Commando (1985). Matrix was a man retired from killing the people that his country told him to kill and was enjoying an idyllic existence with Jenny (Alyssa Milano), letting her shove ice cream in his face and feeding deer that strolled onto their rustic property. However, when his violent past comes back to haunt him in the form of one of his ex-team members, Bennett (Vernon Wells), Matrix has to put his skills to work again for Jenny's sake.

With Jenny being held hostage to ensure that Matrix will assassinate a South American dictator in the name of placing the warlord that Matrix previously helped overthrow - Arius (Dan Hedaya) - back in power, the clock is ticking. Matrix boards a plane to Vel Verde with one of Arius' goons as an escort while another goon, Sully (David Patrick Kelly), watches from the ground to verify that the plane is in the air with Matrix on it.

As the plane leaves the runway without incident, Sully is satisfied that the bird has flown and moves on to more pressing matters - like making obnoxious come-ons to Cindy (Rae Dawn Chong), the attractive flight attendant who's caught his eye. What Sully doesn't know is that Matrix has killed his escort and made his way to the plane's landing gear and before the wheels have retracted into the plane, Matrix makes a spectacular leap into some marshes below where he emerges wet but unharmed and ready to visit some payback on Arius and his crew.

The rest of Commando is a full-course of carnage as Matrix works his way through Arius and his minions in his signature style until he wipes Bennett, his ultimate adversary, off the face of the Earth. Matrix has completed his last mission with a double-digit body count to show for it and he leaves the South American shit hole of Vel Verde with Jenny in tow.


But what if Commando wasn't about a conquering hero?

Yes, it sure looks like Matrix makes it out of the water without injury. But then again, you could say the same about these two characters, as well:

Watching Matrix take his epic plunge from the plane again, it suddenly occurred to me that Commando was perfectly set up to be turned into an Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge/Carnival of Souls-style tale. What kind of mind fuck it would've been for audiences to discover that Matrix didn't quite land the way he'd hoped? Maybe he knocked himself out and drowned in the marsh. Maybe he missed the safety of the marsh altogether. Or maybe no matter where or how you land, falling from hundreds of feet in the air is fatal.

Of course, it would be kind of a bummer ending if Commando went that way. I mean, what about poor Jenny? Things wouldn't end well for her. And if Matrix didn't survive his jump, that would mean that Sully, Bennett, and Arius got away free and clear instead of getting deservedly slaughtered at the hands of Matrix. But look at it this way - in the end, no one ever really gets away.

Like Confederate sympathizer Peyton Farquhar, like church organist Mary Henry, and like John Matrix, we're all only flesh and blood. It's what makes all our struggles, great and small, so poignant.

Put This Face On A Stamp, Already

With myriad personal going-ons keeping me busy and a general apathy towards celebrating my own milestones, I let the recent anniversary date of Dinner with Max Jenke pass by without notice. But with some time to spare tonight, I thought it would be good to acknowledge it - albeit belatedly. On September 12th, 2007, I made my first post here and while much has changed in the blogosphere since then, things here have pretty much stayed the same.

Re-reading my initial posts from '07, I find there's not a jarring disconnect from the way I'm expressing myself today. Then again, three years isn't that long ago and by the time I started this blog I was fully cooked as a person (and then some) with not a lot of big changes to my personality likely to come about. I will say, though, that there's been a lot of posts over the years that I've looked back on and cringed. Some of them just didn't come out the way I wanted them to. Sometimes the writing skills just fell short. But I keep those misbegotten posts up just the same. People should have to live with their mistakes, I say. It keeps you humble.

On the occasion of this bygone anniversary, my thanks to everyone who's ever come by to offer comments or encouragement. It's always appreciated and it always gives me the motivation to keep writing. A lot of bloggers don't stick it out and I find it sad that some who were around when I started have vanished.

To those lost bloggers - like Absinthe of Gloomy Sunday - who helped inspire Dinner with Max Jenke and slipped away since, I dedicate this post.

We Have Such Sales To Show You!

One of the oddest movie merchandise promotions ever appeared on the first VHS release of Clive Barker's Hellraiser (1987). Those who discovered the film on its later VHS editions or on DVD never had the pleasure of seeing the end credits interrupted by the sight of an old woman in a puffy bathrobe, having just watched Hellraiser, sitting in her cluttered living room in the company of her cat Percy, introducing us to the "Watch & Wear" promotion.

As the old lady obliviously takes her scared-stiff kitty on a walk through an obstacle course of strewn body parts ("Have you ever seen such a mess?" she asks Percy) and dangling Cenobite chains while sporting the curious footwear choice of Converse All-Stars (what, no slippers?), items ranging from Hellraiser T-shirts to Hellraiser thermoses to Hellraiser sweatpants are proudly displayed. Besides its appeal to fans of random nonsense, this oddly conceived promo serves as a nostalgic reminder of a time before Hellraiser irrevocably changed both the horror world and popular culture in general.

Horror had always drawn members of the metal and punk crowd so torn T-shirts, mohawks, and leather jackets were nothing new at horror cons - but Hellraiser introduced the more severe, extreme fetishistic look that already existed in underground clubs at the time to a much larger audience that would eagerly adopt it as their own.

While this chintzy promo is trying to sell viewers on the idea of buying sweatpants and baseball hats to "be part of Hellraiser," what the movie really inspired hardcore fans to do be part of Hellraiser is to get their bodies pierced; to radically - in many cases, permanently - alter the way they looked. The fashions that Hellraiser inspired were about S&M imagery, about bodily mutilation - not about slipping into a cozy cotton hoodie.

Ironically, the hands-down best piece of Hellraiser merchandise spotted in this promo isn't even for sale. At the 40 second mark, the old lady reaches for a tissue - from a Lament Configuration-style Kleenex Box! Now that's something I'd love to have.

As any allergy sufferer can tell you, Hell is a runny nose.



Thanks to Will Errickson of Panic on the 4th of July for doing the extra legwork to get the full "Watch & Wear" promo uploaded! Now my memories are complete - gotta love that top-loading VCR!

Five Characters In Search Of An Exit

After The Sixth Sense (1999), writer/director M. Night Shyamalan was instantly hailed as a potential heir to Rod Serling, a humanistic weaver of weird tales capped with flabbergasting twists. Eleven years later, there's good news and bad news on the Shyamalan front. He remains a brand name - so much so that a new series of films has just been launched under the umbrella title of The Night Chronicles, starting with the new Twilight Zone-ish thriller Devil. The bad news is that as a brand, Shyamalan is perceived to be circling the drain. It would be mean to call him a joke but, whether it's deserved or not, that seems to be the overriding consensus these days. No mention of Devil's trailer was allowed to pass in the media without the writer noting how audiences reacted with laughter at the appearance of Shyamalan's name. Unsatisfied with his recent work (and by "recent," I mean almost since The Sixth Sense), the culture has collectively decided that Shyamalan is a one-trick pony whose day is done.

Personally, I find that to be harsh. Mind you, I haven't seen The Happening (2008) so I'm little behind on what he's been up to but based on his other films, I like that he's a thoughtful filmmaker in a genre where most like to play it dumb. The expression of Shyamalan's ideas may not always be 100% successful but I appreciate that he's trying. I'll take even a slightly failed bid to take the genre audience to an elevated place over the knee-jerk nihilism of someone like Rob Zombie any day. Based on interviews I've read, it seems like Shyamalan himself is mystified by the hit his reputation has taken and to his credit, he hasn't changed his style or approach at all to accommodate his critics. He's telling stories the same way he's been telling them from the start and if it's not to the taste of the public anymore, there's not much he can do to change it. In this regard, Shyamalan has joined the company of almost every genre filmmaker - from John Carpenter to George Romero - who find themselves laboring under the scrutiny of fans and critics who constantly compare their new work unfavorably to the initial work that made their name.

With The Night Chronicles, Shyamalan is originating the concepts but assigning the actual scripting and directing duties to others while he stays on as a producer. On Devil, the duo of brothers John Erick Dowdle (director) and Drew Dowdle (producer) - best known for 2008's shaky-cam shocker Quarantine - and screenwriter Brian Nelson were responsible for bringing this tale of an elevator ride of the damned to the screen. The results are not spectacular but Devil's modest charm bodes well for the future of The Night Chronicles as a series that could bring some of the shine back to Shyamalan's name.

Set in a mysteriously stalled elevator, Devil puts five random people together and - as building security, maintenance crews, police and firefighters work to extract them - it becomes clear that this is not just a routine crisis. The Prince of Darkness himself is aboard this elevator and no earthly force is going to interfere with his nefarious business. The mystery for the audience is in guessing which one of these apparently ordinary people is really the devil in disguise.

Is it Ben (Bokeem Woodbine), the hotheaded security guard? Is it Jane Cowski (Jenny O'Hara), an old woman with a penchant for lifting wallets? Is it Vince (Geoffrey Arend), a mattress salesman and first-class dick? Is it Tony (Logan Marshall-Green), a war vet who served time in Afganistan? Or is it Sarah (Bojana Novakovic), a scheming gold-digger? All is revealed by end of Devil's brief 80 minute running time.

The guessing game that Devil invites its audience to participate in is a fun one and its brisk storytelling ensures that Devil doesn't slog its way to its finale. It might be a simplistic morality tale but the Dowdle's ability to keep Devil tight and to the point makes it feel like they knew exactly how long to keep an audience waiting for the pay-off. If it were any longer, Devil would've been likely to instigate a "is that it?" reaction. As is, it's an example of efficient storytelling and that kind of clear-eyed application of craft is always welcome.

Besides the inevitable twist, Shyamalan's influence can be seen in the spiritual aspect of Devil. Its plot calls back to Signs (2002) in that every seemingly random incident in the character's lives is shown to be guided by greater forces. This argument for the need for religious belief comes across as heavy-handed (and sometimes unintentionally comic) and it's not helped any by voice-over narration that hammers the movie's themes home, just in case anyone might not be paying attention. Devil could've done without Shyamalan's need to sermonize and I have to imagine that the more strident aspects of Devil were a direct result of Shyamalan's input. It's a shame that Shyamalan doesn't trust his audience to intuit the underlying messages of his films on their own as Devil would've benefited from a lighter touch.

Still, Devil at least shows that others can effectively adapt Shyamalan's ideas - maybe more adeptly than Shyamalan himself. Maybe the example of Dowdle's fleet-footed finesse will bring out the best in Shyamalan again the next time he gets behind the camera.