The Ruins (2008)

The mainstream horror genre in Hollywood is in poor shape at the moment. Cinema screens are choked with either poor remakes of interesting Asian horror films (such as One Missed Call or The Eye) or poor remakes of forgettable 1980s horror films (such as Prom Night). Therefore, a film like The Ruins is somewhat refreshing, for the simple fact that it’s an original adapation of a novel (wholly original contemporary horror films seem extremely rare at the moment). Even that said, however, The Ruins does feel similar to some recent horror films and doesn’t quite manage to make a memorable impact.

The Ruins appears to be the next in a growing series of films about young Americans in peril abroad. We’ve seen the same thing recently in Hostel and Turistas; these films always seem to feature selfish and ignorant characters, seemingly unlikeable. Normal standards of audience identification don’t seem to apply to films like this, however. The characters seem incidental, purely the targets of the violence in the film. The worse a character appears, the worse their punishment will be (either directly or indirectly). The violence in this film is pretty gruesome and is almost wholly generated from within.

The most interesting element of this film is the conflict. As opposed to most horror films where external forces act against the main characters, the majority of the conflict in The Ruins is internal. The two main antagonist agents (the Mayans and the pyramid) are secondary to the damage the protagonists amongst themselves. Even the main threat in the film (the vines) seems like an afterthought, with occasionally laughable physical and special effects (some of the sequences looked like a man moving around in a leafy vine suit).

I’ll give the film credit for relative originality and for ruthless visuals (most of the gore sequences are impressive and disturbing). The acting is decent, though not remarkable (Joe Anderson’s German accent is a bit ropey at times and there are a few over-the-top moments). Although there’s nothing of much substance to this film, there’s nothing horrible either. The Ruins is a gruesome little horror film, easily forgotten but entertaining in the moment.

The Incredible Hulk (2008)

This newest screen incarnation of the popular green superhero marks an unusual time for comic adaptations. Up until this point, if a superhero comic was turned into a film there were usually two possible outcomes: a successful franchise which eventually grows further and further away from the original material (such as the Burton Batman films or the Reeve Superman films) or a tremendous flop, quickly forgotten (Dolph Lundgren as The Punisher comes to mind). Ang Lee’s 2003 superhero film Hulk is generally considered the latter: an expensive failure (even though the film made over $100 million). Following the patterns set previously, one would expect a significant gap between Ang Lee’s version and any future Hulk films. For better or worse, this was not the case, as The Incredible Hulk comes just five years after 2003′s Hulk, not sequel but remake, with a whole new cast, new story and new Hulk.

Because of this, Louis Letterier’s attempt at the Hulk franchise faces inevitable comparison to the earlier film. The major differences are obvious at the outset: The Incredible Hulk is action-based as opposed to the more character-driven Hulk. That said, the action sequences in the later film seem clumsier, not as refined as those seen in Lee’s version (perhaps not so surprising considering Ang Lee’s previous film Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and its beautifully choreographed fight sequences). Further than that, The Incredible Hulk also seems fairly rushed overall, from the occasionally ropey special effects to the weak plot. Perhaps not surprisingly, the plot points seem to only serve as transitions between action set-pieces.

Unlike most superhero films that came before it, the world of The Incredible Hulk seems to exist in a greater Marvel universe, something lacking in Ang Lee’s version. There are hints and references to other Marvel superheroes (and villains) dotted all over the screen, some subtle and some blatant. This simple consideration is a great treat for comic fans and seems an obvious step (especially considering Marvel is producing all their films from now on and cross-promotion is almost never a bad thing for comics). Marvel definitely has their act together with their films and a massive superhero film collaboration is not far off (something which comics fans have been waiting for for decades).

I personally enjoyed Ang Lee’s ‘softer’ version of the Hulk. Even though the film was far from perfect, he tried to bring a level of seriousness and respectability to a sometimes silly film genre. I can respect Letterier’s attempt to bring his film back to what the fans expected (or perhaps what the studio thinks the fans expect), but I still prefer Lee’s version. Granted, the action sequences are better in The Incredible Hulk, but I enjoyed the performances more in Hulk and I thought the 2003 version had a poetry to it which is lacking in 2008.

Is this the start of a new way of looking at superhero films? If a version isn’t massively successful, just go back and start from scratch? I hope not, but looking at the forthcoming Punisher War Zone, it appears as if franchise continuity isn’t as important as box office success.

Uzumaki (2000)

In horror films, it’s easy to run from the killer. Part of the excitement in watching a slasher film, for instance, is seeing the promiscuous teenagers successfully evade the maniac in a hockey mask, if only until the next scene. Now imagine if the killer you’re running from isn’t a six-foot walking Freudian nightmare, but an abstract concept. How can you escape from an idea?

The Hollywood horror genre during the late 1990s was getting pretty old. The gore cycle had run its course; people were tired of seeing stupid kids slaughtered by Freddy or Jason. Along comes Scream, and it becomes smart kids getting slaughtered, but even that didn’t last very long. Outside mainstream Hollywood horror, however, strange and disturbing things were happening.

In Japan, Hideo Nakata’s Ringu in 1998 helped to re-energise the lagging genre. Suddenly the focus shifted from gore and skin to terror and psychosis.

Following the pattern set by Ringu, Higuchinsky’s Uzumaki is at once an incredibly unique, disturbing, frightening horror film, ten years ahead of Hollywood horror.

An uzumaki is a spiral (simple enough). There are spirals everywhere: in the water, in the sky, on your fingerprints. It’s easy to miss them, but they’re everywhere.

Something weird’s going on in the town of Kurozu-cho. People are obsessed with spirals, almost mesmerised. A student falls to his death at the foot of a twisting spiral staircase. A man becomes transfixed by the shell of a snail. A girl develops a hypnotic fashion accessory. One by one the townspeople fall under the power of the uzumaki. The town of Kurozu-cho is cursed by the spiral.

Based on a trilogy of bizarre and frightening manga (Japanese comics) by Junji Ito, the film is a fascinating mix of classic atmosphere and modern editing. Higuchinsky (his first and last name, apparently), has a very expressive visual style that fits well with the disturbing content.

I was first introduced to Uzumaki by a friend of mine who’d bought the first book in the manga trilogy. She was so disturbed by it, she felt she couldn’t have it in her house. She gave it to me because it frightened her that much.

There are certain sequences in the film that still freak me out; in my eyes that’s the mark of a great horror movie.

Uzumaki: the spiral has you.

(Originally written in 2004.)

30 Days of Night (2007)

I’ve never read the original ’30 Days of Night’ comic, but the main hook is brilliant: what happens when vampires invade a small northern town just as a month of wintry darkness and isolation descends? This is a story that was made for film. Director David Slade (working with Steve Niles, the comic’s writer) has crafted an interesting, tense, and claustrophobic horror film filled with strong performances and some good shock and gore.

Slade takes his time with the set-up of the film, different narrative elements gradually building together piece by piece, helping to develop the characters and establish the setting. When the main thrust of the action does begin, it seems inevitable and inescapable. This film reminded me a lot of John Carpenter’s The Thing: both concern remote frozen settlements under attack by otherworldly beings and both deal with isolation and claustrophobia. However, The Thing deals mostly with paranoia (never knowing if the man standing next to you is really human), whereas 30 Days deals more with interpersonal relations under strain.

Technically, the film looks really interesting. Slade has an excellent eye for visuals and he crafts several genuinely frightening and tense sequences. The film’s (relatively) low budget lets it down at certain points, however: some of the establishing shots of the town are a littlle amateurish and there is obvious use of CG and miniatures. Those are minor quibbles, however, and generally the visuals are quite good. There are several continuity holes, however, perhaps remnants of deleted scenes or altered sequences. They aren’t really noticeable and actually help add to the disorientation created during the attack on the town.

The performances are all above average, with Josh Hartnett settling nicely into his new position of leading man. As well, following from his previous work in Hostage, Ben Foster seems eager to establish himself as the go-to guy for playing crazy bastards. His characterisation in 30 Days is borderline over-the-top but it seems to work.

It’s nice to see a straight-forward vampire film that manages to bring a fresh approach to an often tired genre. I’m not sure if the types of vampires seen in 30 Days are as revolutionary as everyone seems to believe, but I personally enjoyed them, all black eyes and gaping teeth, practically shark-like.

30 Days of Night shows that interesting films can be made from interesting comics and that horror films are made all the better by good writing and excellent direction.