Skip to main content

Get out of my house!


Cold Creek Manor
(2003)

Mike Figgis hasn’t had much luck with his film career, and even less with his Hollywood ventures.  So what inspired him to take on this derisibly cliché-strewn and progressively more banal thriller is anyone’s guess. My pick is that he was behind with the mortgage payments.

At least Figgis can blame Richard Jeffries for the clueless script. Dennis Quaid and family escape New York to moral rural climes (where exactly eludes me). No sooner have they moved into a rundown mansion than the ex-owner (Stephen Dorff) shows up. He’s been inside for manslaughter, but offers to help with the renovations in an ever-so-slightly threatening (and extremely coarse) manner. Before you know it, he’s coming on to the wife (Sharon Stone) freaking out the daughter with his touchy-feely-ness (Kristen Stewart) and eliciting undisguised hatred from the son (Ryan Wilson). What dark secrets does the manor hold? Aside from the snakes, that is! These folks sure shouldn’t have left the city!

Dorff’s terribly miscast, about as threatening as balloon animals. But he does manage to belch with reasonable conviction. Quaid continues his competition with Harrison Ford to see who can become the more constipated-looking as he gets older.  Shazza doesn’t have much to do after an early scene where she gets offered a promotion in exchange for prostituting herself. Neither ever had much star power (Sharon’s snatch was a one-time-only attraction) or script selection skills, but this is undiscerning even for them. The lack of enthusiasm shows. Meanwhile little Kristen doesn’t get bitten by a vampire, but she is set upon by deadly snakes.

Yes, the snakes scene. It’s a while since I’ve seen such an unintentionally hilarious sequence. Someone (I won’t say who, in order to preserve what little mystery the film doesn’t have) has infested the manor with snakes. Everywhere the family turns, every door they open or ceiling they glance at, there are deadly reptiles. Doing not very much. So they flee, screaming and shouting, and shouting and screaming. Up to the roof. And still the snakes keep trying to get out after them. Figgis must have undergone a temporary lobotomy to agree to such ham-fisted nonsense, and he doesn’t even begin to make it work. It’s enough to put him in director jail for life.

That’s not the end of the silliness. When Sharon and Dennis go out hunting for evidence of Stephen’s dreadful deeds they do so at night in a rainstorm. Over a deep, dark hole. There's also a sublimely stupid moment where Quaid punches Sharon in the face. To further emphasise how innovative this movie is, Juliette Lewis is cast as a white trash slut. God knows what poor Christopher Plummer is doing here, but as he only had two days work he got off lightly.

It’s possible that someone thought there was potential for this to be a serviceable thriller in a Straw Dogs by way of Cape Fear vein. So why give the film a title that suggests a haunted house movie? There’s a moment early on where I held out hope that one of the family might be possessed. Such a development couldn’t have made what we actually get any worse.

To show that he isn’t completely comatose, Figgis also contributes a score to the film. Which is horrendous. The resultant cacophony has to be heard to be believed. Only worth a look if you’re an aficionado of unintentional comedy.

*1/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Our very strength incites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe.

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Stupid adult hands!

Shazam! (2019)
(SPOILERS) Shazam! is exactly the kind of movie I hoped it would be, funny, scary (for kids, at least), smart and delightfully dumb… until the final act. What takes place there isn’t a complete bummer, but right now, it does pretty much kill any interest I have in a sequel.

I have discovered the great ray that first brought life into the world.

Frankenstein (1931)
(SPOILERS) To what extent do Universal’s horror classics deserved to be labelled classics? They’re from the classical Hollywood period, certainly, but they aren’t unassailable titans that can’t be bettered – well unless you were Alex Kurtzman and Chris Morgan trying to fashion a Dark Universe with zero ingenuity. And except maybe for the sequel to the second feature in their lexicon. Frankenstein is revered for several classic scenes, boasts two mesmerising performances, and looks terrific thanks to Arthur Edeson’s cinematography, but there’s also sizeable streak of stodginess within its seventy minutes.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

Only an idiot sees the simple beauty of life.

Forrest Gump (1994)
(SPOILERS) There was a time when I’d have made a case for, if not greatness, then Forrest Gump’s unjust dismissal from conversations regarding its merits. To an extent, I still would. Just not nearly so fervently. There’s simply too much going on in the picture to conclude that the manner in which it has generally been received is the end of the story. Tarantino, magnanimous in the face of Oscar defeat, wasn’t entirely wrong when he suggested to Robert Zemeckis that his was a, effectively, subversive movie. Its problem, however, is that it wants to have its cake and eat it.

Do not mention the Tiptoe Man ever again.

Glass (2019)
(SPOILERS) If nothing else, one has to admire M Night Shyamalan’s willingness to plough ahead regardless with his straight-faced storytelling, taking him into areas that encourage outright rejection or merciless ridicule, with all the concomitant charges of hubris. Reactions to Glass have been mixed at best, but mostly more characteristic of the period he plummeted from his must-see, twist-master pedestal (during the period of The Village and The Happening), which is to say quite scornful. And yet, this is very clearly the story he wanted to tell, so if he undercuts audience expectations and leaves them dissatisfied, it’s most definitely not a result of miscalculation on his part. For my part, while I’d been prepared for a disappointment on the basis of the critical response, I came away very much enjoying the movie, by and large.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…