Skip to main content

Things are in motion, huh?

John Dies at the End
(2012)

One might cynically see John Dies at the End as in instant cult movie, tailor-made as a stoner favourite. It’s sure to be exactly that. I’m quite certain it is already, since I’ve come a bit late to the game in seeing it. It’s the kind of story thought up after one too many bong hits, and the result is a picture that instantly invites X-meets-Z movie comparisons, or reminds the viewer of the giddiness of discovering a weird spectacle with a truly off-the-wall sensibility. If John Dies at the End can’t quite pay off the promise of its first hour, it’s still an irreverent, messy, hugely inventive, cartoonish delight.


Really good cult movies of this ilk really don’t come along all that often, ones bubbling with their own self-conscious bravado, so their niche audience has a tendency to over hype them when they do. There’s a ready and eager demand for trippy, apocalyptic, gross-out comedies that wear their knowledge of science fiction, horror and substance abuse on their sleeves. But it would be unfair to peg John Dies at the End with the less inventive The World’s End and This is the End (one might dispute John’s kinship with these pictures, but I think we can agree they have the End in common). Despite John succumbing to lowest common denominator gags at times, and a “slacker” default that occasionally grates, there’s a running drollery to the movie that makes it very winning. Honestly, they had me at the song titled Camel Apocalypse. And then came the flying moustache.


Perhaps the difference between the geeks-who-did comedies based on formative genre influences and John Dies at the End is Don Coscarelli, a genre darling for three and a half decades but still a mere pup of 60 years age. I’ve managed to miss most of his pictures, despite always being aware of when a new one comes along. A purveyor of cheap-and-cheerful whacked-out horror movies (approximately half his filmography consists of the Phantasm series), he follows course with John Dies at the End. It wears its low budget as a badge of pride, and there’s something appealingly ‘80s about the straight-to-video special effects. I was put in mind of movies like Waxwork II: Lost in Time. Arguably, its general approach of anarchic horror-comedy mash-up finds its firmest roots in that decade’s Evil Dead II. But the loser protagonists set-up starts with Bill & Ted, and runs through Dude, Where’s My Car before ending up here. Indeed, part of the reason the third act (well, I don’t think the movie divides on quite such clear lines, but you get the idea) stumbles isn’t really down to the make-do effects work (lots of bad green screen in there); it’s that the madcap finale owes so much to the double-think reality bending of its predecessors, and so in its own way comes across as disappointingly linear.


Points of comparisons and references to possible inspirations are rife, from Bill & Ted meets The Naked Lunch (that one from executive producer Paul Giamatti) to Douglas Adams meets Stephen King (Coscarelli on the novel and why he bought the rights) to mental ‘80s W D Richter movies (as writer or director) Big Trouble in Little China and The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension. Chances are any given trip movie will come to mind (hence Cronenberg, Altered States, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Limitless) or pictures dealing with time travel and alternate realities (Donnie Darko).  Bill and Ted meets In the Mouth of Madness was my initial reaction, on the kind of budget Carpenter had for Prince of Darkness (although, cinematographer Mike Gioulakis’ work is top notch in spite of his limitations; there’s much visual inventiveness here, while retaining an identifiably comic vibe). Lovecraft is definitely strongly in the mix and there’s something of the Robert Anton Wilson to the stacked-up over-involved exposition of the final third (which, as note, unfortunately fails to satisfy by being overly derivative).


In most of these cases the name checks are complimentary, since they suggest an active creativity and vibrancy. You’d be forgiven for initially thinking this might be a crude Kevin Smith-esque affair when, on trying to escape a cellar, a door nob transforms into a large johnson (“That door cannot be opened!”) And when the picture goes for crudity it is at its weakest (“Shitload”, Korrok insulting the size of David’s wiener, the knowledge that a device will “sure fuck his shit up, seriously”); it’s the kind of laziness one expects from Smith, and it does a little to undermine the genuine bursts of strangeness. On the other hand, some of the silliest sight gags (Dave talking into a hotdog as if it’s a mobile phone) work because they are inventively sustained or cutely referenced (“Apparently it’s Eyes Wide Shut world”).


Reaction to the movie seems to be mixed among devotees of David Wong’s (Jason Pargin’s penname shares that of the book/movie’s main protagonist) novel of “spiritualist exorcists”, as it apparently eschews much of the explanatory material and character development. This includes the reason for the title (it’s not just a joke about spoiling the end of a story, but I’m not going to spoil it by explaining why) but if anything I was more partial to the resultantly fragmented and slightly incoherent inclusions, which add a Lynchian vibe to the reality-busting incidents.


The inclusion of the Theseus Paradox (if you replace every part of a boat, is it still the same boat?) in respect of an axe doesn’t relate to anything per se, the way it does in the novel, but that kind of randomness, like the multiple introductory storylines (Chase Williamson’s Dave and the axe, Dave telling Giamatti’s reporter Arnie Blondestone about his abilities, Dave introducing John while recounting an encounter with a meat monster, Dave relating his first experience of the drug “Soy Sauce” ; one that gives him psychic powers but is also deadly and appears to be the key to an invasion of Earth from an alternate dimension) seems entirely appropriate. There’s a marvellously loopy scene in which “Robert Marley” (Tai Bennett) instructs the sceptical Dave that “Time is an illusion” as he recounts how an explosion at the end of Dave’s dream the night before coincided with a clap of thunder outside his window; how did Dave construct the narrative of his dream in advance to match this? Coscarelli also throws in seemingly random surrealities with delightful regularity (“Have I died yet?”, “Was that me?”, “Are you my dad?”, “This phone still works”).


The encounter with the meat monster (complete with a frozen turkey head) is wonderfully shoe-string and all the more effective for it (there’s even stop motion!), while the budget creatures seen out of the corner of the eye (on ceilings or in cages) manage to tread that fine line between naff and disturbing. However, the one-eyed Korrok is a failure, since it’s just what you’d expect from a tale wearing its extra-space/time realms and creature influences on its sleeve.


Coscarelli populates John with a cast of new and familiar faces. Williamson, called on to deliver reams of voiceover in a not-quite-there air of resignation, avoids the “whacky” tone of many a stoner movie. Rob Mayes is more in line with that pose, but he lends John a guileless affability. Giamatti is great, but he always is; his presence lends the picture a peculiar credibility even though his role is not a large one. Then there are the horror movie icons Doug Jones (Pinhead in Hellraiser) and Angus Scrimm (The Tall Man in Phantasm). Clancy Brown is very funny, but underused, as TV psychic Marconi while The Wire’s Glynn Turman is also memorable as world-weary police detective. And there’s a sterling performance from intrepid and fearless hound Bark Lee, playing himself (his best moment comes driving a car).


Coscarelli’s delirious psychedelic comic book mindbender does a great job shuffling in and out of warped realities and fractured consciousnesses.  It’s drawback is that Wong’s choice of slacker protagonists identifies it too clearly with a company of fellow drop-out comedies. It’s a product of a geekdom that gives voice to its influences rather than subsumes them, but at heart it’s more akin to a comic variant on Richard Kelly’s oeuvre than guilty of the shameless plundering of Wright & Pegg et al. Of course, aficionados of both those oeuvres will doubtless be rolling a big fat one before indulging, and the same applies here.


****

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism