Anthology Day

Two for the road…

V/H/S/2: I reeeeeeally didn’t like V/H/S.  It was a movie that treated its premise like the thin means to an end that it was, the stories all felt too long, even though they were only like 20 minutes each, and the annoying-as-hell characters grated on me so much that I didn’t even enjoy it when they died horribly.  Then they announced V/H/S/2, and I thought, “oh, Lord, why?”  Then some buzz was coming out of it saying it managed to fix all of the issues from the first movie.  I was skeptical, at best.

Then I watched it.

No, it didn’t fix all of the issues, but it was really, really good, you guys.

Yeah, the premise is still a little silly.  I mean, again… WHY VHS TAPES?!?!?!?  This stuff still takes place in modern-day, so who’s taking digital photography and transferring it to VHS?  Now, if these stories were vintage, like happening in the early 90’s or before, it would make sense.  But since these days it’s literally easier to make a friggin’ .m4v file and throw it onto a thumb drive than to put it on a 30-year-old piece of technology, in real time, it sort of makes me mad.  Because it means they did it so they could continue to keep the V/H/S naming convention for both movies.  No deeper reason.

Also, some of the segments are mysteriously edited together in such a way that wouldn’t really be possible.  The “Safe Haven” story, in particular.  The basic premise is that a film crew has been granted permission to enter this Indonesian cult’s compound to make a documentary on them.  They have several cameras to film with, some handheld, some on tripods, and a secret spy camera embedded in a shirt button.  Needless to say, as this is a horror movie, things go supernaturally south, and it ends bloodily for everyone involved.  It’s a really good piece of storytelling, to be sure, but at one point I started thinking to myself, “wait… how are they editing this stuff together, complete with shots from the in-house security system and footage from cameras that get destroyed in all the chaos?  And who did the editing?  And why would they edit it like a horror movie?”*

OK, that said, I want to reiterate- it was an awesome story, well-shot, well-written, suspenseful, unpredictable, and scary.  As are pretty much all of the stories in this sequel.  The issue is that it’s shackled by the main premise/framing story of the movie.**  And I don’t think I’m nitpicking or thinking too much about it.  In Creepshow, it’s a kid reading a comic book and we get to see the stories come to live-action life.  That makes sense.  That works.  These movies, though, set themselves up for scrutiny by being so specific in premise for the sake of a catchy title.

Anyway, I’ve spent all this time talking about what’s wrong with V/H/S/2 when there’s so much right about it.  Although… I suppose pointing out the negative is a direct result of how good the movie is, overall.  Because in something good, it’s always that one bad thing that sticks out like a sore thumb.***  But there’s some borderline masterful horror filmmaking going on here, even if some of the stories themselves are a little basic-horror-trope-y (zombies, angry spirits, possession, aliens).  And considering the short-filminess of it all, I’m going to call it a win for everyone involved.  If you’ve got 90-minutes to build tension and pay it off in a single story, that’s one thing, but to do it for 20-30 minutes at a time, 5 times in a row, and not lose me like your predecessor did?  Bravo.

*I’m skirting spoiler territory here, but trust me, it doesn’t matter.  What happens to everyone in the end is not half as cool as how it gets there.

**Need to say this, too- as dumb as the whole VHS premise is, the framing story this time around was really, really well done.  Creepy and scary as hell.

***Example (not the best one, but it’s the one that just popped up in my head): Poltergeist.  GREAT movie, all-around.  But that one bit where the guy peels off his face always sticks out because it looks crappy.  Does it ruin the movie?  Hells no.  But you sure do notice it when you watch…

. 

Movie 43: Whoa.  I just went to Wikipedia for a quick refresher on Movie 43’s cast and stories (it’s been over a month since I watched it), and learned it was overwhelmingly panned by critics, and that some of the actors in it tried to get out of their contracts during filming.  I’m curious as to why.  Because I gotta say- I started it up on Netflix thinking I’d see something kind of funny that I could turn off at any time, should it suck, and instead actually laughed my ass off, many times, alone in my living room, and would have been fine if the movie had presented me with several more mini-stories.  Maybe I’m too easy, or something.

OK, let’s back up for a minute.  In case you don’t know, Movie 43 is a comedy anthology movie starring… lots of people.  From Hugh Jackman to Anna Faris to Johnny Knoxville to Kate Winslet.  I think that’s a good cross-section of the varietal casting involved here.  The directors range from Brett Ratner to James Gunn to Elizabeth Banks to Peter Farrelly.  So, it’s all over the place, talent-wise.  It’s usually compared, stylistically, to Kentucky Fried Movie, if you’ve ever seen that.  If not, maybe Amazon Women On The Moon?  The Groove Tube?  No?  See those, you guys.

Anyway, yeah, comedy anthology.  The framing story stars Dennis Quaid as a crazy screenwriter who tries to pitch a movie to Greg Kinnear.  Each story is a new scene in his, “movie,” and each one makes Kinnear more certain that Quaid has lost his mind.  Eventually, Kinnear gives up on trying to be magnanimous about the whole thing and Quaid, clearly unhinged, pulls a gun.  And keeps on describing what we all see.

So, yeah, another anthology movie with a framing story.  Two in one day!*

And it’s really, really funny.  Like, all of it.  And I think the wide range of comedy styles helps this a lot.  From gross-out to clever to obvious to overtly silly to even overwritten, it covers all bases.

It is hard to get into what makes each story good, because 1) you can’t really explain “funny,” and 2) they’re each so short that to even briefly discuss them would give too much away.  I mean, it’s not like it’s so brilliant that I’m afraid to spoil it for you, but I want to avoid the whole, “and then this part, and, oh yeah, this part, and… oh man, THIS part…” thing.**  I’m sure a string of synopses would bore you to tears.  So just see it.  And let me know if you find it funny at all.***

Yeah.  Nice “review,” Bri.  Ugh.

*A horror/comedy anthology day wasn’t the plan.  It just sort of happened.  “Happy accident,” as Bob Ross would say.  Were he not dead.

**I think my favorite bit was the one with Kieran Culkin and Emma Stone.  Well written, clever, with a nice bit of the human condition thrown in.  Pretty cool

***If the Hugh Jackman thing doesn’t make you laugh and cringe with delight, you’re dead inside.  This is all.