I've officially gone through half of Craven's 22 films. That's 11 films for those who need help with the math. 11 films from the oft proclaimed master of horror Wes Craven. At this point in my journey of Craving Craven I can start to make an opinion on whether he is actually a master along the likes of George A. Romero or John Carpenter. As it stands right now the answer is a resounding: No he is not!!
Out of 11 films only five of them have any merit and make me comfortable recommending them. Six of them range from almost recommendable to so bad I never want to watch them again, think of them again, discuss them again or hear them mentioned in any context what so ever. And only A Nightmare on Elm Street is deserved of accolades and classic status.
After Nightmare, Craven entered what I call phase two of his career. A phase where he could do whatever he wanted, with bigger budgets and better actors. So far he's fumbled tremendously making only one movie, The Serpent and the Rainbow, that showed any sign that he has any talent. Shocker, a slasher film in a subgenre that Craven has shown promise, ended up being shockingly bad. Phase two has been disappointing to say the least, and except for Wes Craven's New Nightmare, things just don't look so good.
Which brings me back to The People Under the Stairs. It is pushed as a horror movie but I remember it differently. Not that I really remember it well, but I remember a movie that is odd and funny and weird and different to most other things I had seen at the time (and most different to all that Craven has done before). Was it good? I thought it was okay, nothing special, but not terrible. But then again I wasn't really of age or mature enough to make an astute decision.
After Shocker I am expecting it to be bad; dumb; stupid; annoying; cheesy. I do though think it will be better than Shocker but I'm not sure if it will qualify as a recommendation for those who need such things. Something I want to do really badly at the moment is finish watching Craven's movies. Nightmare was excellent, a few others were good but in general I've been bored and disappointed more often than not, and that's putting it lightly.
Yet I did start this journey and I will finish it, and now, at this junction, there is nothing left to do but continue on and watch the next film in line. The sun has gone down, the house is quiet and I'm ready to go. All I need to do is shut down my computer and turn off my light. And that's exactly what is about to happen...
FilmThoughts:
While not a bad film, The People Under the Stairs is a film I ultimately cannot recommend. It really falls just short of something that I feel comfortably recommending as it has plenty of neat moments, some solid acting and an original, if not bloody weird, story. It also has quite a few problems that ends up making the film less of a film than I had hoped for.
The story, like I said, is a very weird one. Fool (Brandon Adams) lives with his sister and his sick mother in an apartment where three days hence they will be evicted. His sister's boyfriend Leroy (Ving Rhames) takes him along to rob the landlords of their riches. The landlords (Everett McGill and Wendy Robie) are weirdos who have locked up their daughter from the outside world and and locked up a bunch of strangers 'under the stairs'. Needless to say, Fool gets locked in the house and must fight to not only escape but to stay alive.
So the best thing about this film, and what makes it somewhat work, is the acting. Adams is half decent in the lead, but the show really belongs to McGill and Robie who are nightmarishly evil and really bring presence, fun and a sense of glee to their roles. Rhames and A.J. Langer, who plays Alice, do a great job too and in a very small role, Bill Cobbs is very very good. There are other good performances scattered throughout the film but there are also performances that pale in comparison. Nothing too bad but not on the level as the performances I just mentioned.
Another good thing about this film is it's look. The sets designed here are awesome. The camera swoops through the inner walls of the house and they are immaculately designed. The inner crevices and intricate designs really work well and make the viewer feel as if they are in the inner workings of the house. The rest of the sets and locations aren't as effective and feel lesser so because of the main set. The effects too are pretty good with some great looking explosions and some gory (minimal) moments.
But that's really the only good things about this film, and not that the rest was very bad per say, just that it wasn't very good. Firstly the make-up isn't that good. I mean some things are great, like some great looking blood and cuts and bruises but some just looks like they threw white powder on actors and called it make-up. Then there is the music which works at parts and doesn't at others. Sometimes the music is just awesome and sometimes it's hip-hop for no reason other than the lead character is black.
But for me the biggest problem with this film, and the main reason why I can't recommend it is the story and how it plays out. While wholey original on its own each piece of the story could be seen as taken from something else. Religious nuts, people locked up in houses who have lost the capability of acting human, etc, et al. Then there is the fact that the main star is a 13 year old kid. Made in 1991, it is a guarantee that he will escape and save the day. Such is the power of a hollywood film in the 90's, the kid jut can't die. And then there is the house that is impossible to escape from, but Fool sees a light, climbs a ladder and viola there is an exit.
Mostly though, the problem is that the film doesn't know if it wants to be a comedy or a horror film. It's got gore, violence and intensity and then it turns into a comedy. Then it reverts back to horror. The two never blend well together and feel at odds with one another. And the comedy, which isn't around long enough or doesn't make enough appearances, works a lot better than the horror. The film is never really scary enough, if at all and just when it starts to get going with the horror and gore it snaps back to a very short comedic and sometimes slapstick moment.
For that reason the film never comes together and therefore I can't justify recommending the film to anyone but die hard horror fans or die hard Wes Craven fans. Anyone else will probably think the film is stupid and weird and will think they have wasted their time watching this film. It sure does come close to being a full on recommendation but, typically of Craven, it never quiet gets there.
Re-playability: 5 out of 10 Originality: 6 out of 10
Directing: 6 out of 10 Acting: 7 out of 10
Costumes and Make-up: 6 out of 10 Editing: 6 out of 10
Cinematography: 7 out of 10 Script: 5 out of 10
Production Design (Sets/Locations/Special Effects: 7 out of 10 Music: 6 out of 10
Total Score = 61%
***ALERT: THE REST OF THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SERIOUS SPOILERS: ALERT***
***ALERT: THE REST OF THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SERIOUS SPOILERS: ALERT***
AfterThoughts:
When the film ends, these said people just walk off into the moonlit night and no one seems to care. They are surrounded by at least 100 people and no one bats an eye at these mutant-ish people. It's a weird film and one of Craven's better ones which doesn't in the end say much about Craven and his talents. With films like this it becomes more and more shocking that studios keep funding his films.
In his second phase of his filmmaking career, Craven, so far, has only made two films that warrant any attention, A Nightmare on Elm Street and The Serpent and the Rainbow. I've seen 12 films of his now and more and more I am starting to see how overrated he is. Nightmare was legendary; the rest of his good(?) films are only legendary because of Nightmare. As I see it, so far, he's not a good writer and not a great director. Sure he's got better at both but after almost 20 years in the industry he should be a lot better than this.
If it wasn't for Nightmare, I am positive that at this point in Craven's career he would be strictly regulated to TV. I mean out of 12 films only 5 are good enough to allow him to make feature films and even some of those aren't great. Averaging his film score we get a paltry 57.25%; take off Nightmare and we get a score that is less than 55%. That to me does not say Master of Terror, instead it says sometimes lucky hack. Even in his good films there are moments that are poor, bad or just don't make sense.
With 10 films to go it's not looking good for Mr. Craven. Phase three might right this though as Scream gave Craven a new lease on life as it were. But based on what has happened so far in his career, I highly doubt that he can recover. Freddy Kruger was a master stroke fluke of a creation by a guy who just can't seem to deliver. After all, Craven's second best film so far is Deadly Blessing and I'm guessing most of you readers haven't even seen it (or even heard of it). And even still that film wasn't what I would call great.
I'm going to wrap this up now as I want to move along to his next films. I love horror movies and I love movies and I love watching the career of a director. I'm not enjoying Wes Craven's films as much as I hoped I would and I feel like I have been watching them for months on end now. In reality it has only been two and a half weeks, the longest two and half weeks of my movie watching life. With that said, from what I remember, his next film should be his next great one.
No comments:
Post a Comment