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

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.