THE DARK KNIGHT (2008) - Review

The Dark Knight

Action/Crime/Drama
2 hours and 32 minutes
Rated: PG-13

Written by: Jonathan Nolan & Christopher Nolan
Directed by: Christopher Nolan
Produced by: Christopher Nolan, Charles Roven, and Emma Thomas

Cast:
Christian Bale
Michael Caine
Heath Ledger
Gary Oldman
Aaron Eckhart
Maggie Gyllenhaal
Morgan Freeman

Why So Serious?

The Batman franchise - like all superhero franchises - has seen its fair share of reboots, reimaginings, or remakes (three now, which may seem like a small number but keep in mind its the same number that Superman and Spiderman have under their super belts as well). Super hero movies are a lot like ticks: for years you just heard about them, and now they're everywhere - especially during the summer season. They've flooded the market place faster and harder than any other genre over the past two decades. But can one blame the business side of Hollywood for this? After all, these films do tend to churn out enormous profits ... well, most of them do, and this alone might make their enormous budgets and constant reinventions all the more worthwhile for Hollywood. Personally, I'm of the belief that superhero movies have over stayed their welcome by about ten years. With my own prejudice against movies that heavily utilize CGI and fall outside the realm of realism aside, I'm willing to concede there are in fact some really remarkable entries within this cinematic phenomenon. One of them, of course, being The Dark Knight.

The film succeeds in many ways due to the fact that it is a superhero movie less concerned with CGI and wants to be remembered as being a film that grounded itself in realism - or at least as close to realism as a superhero movie can get. It's a far step away from the surrealist Batman films of Tim Burton and an even further step (thank goodness) away from the hokey, tongue-in-cheek Batman movies of Joel Schumacher (somebody please show this movie to Arnold Schwarzengger so that he can see how to deliver a pun effectively). And yet still, The Dark Knight succeeds further by improving upon the rather dull and unimpressive moments of its predecessor Batman Begins.

For starters, there's the story. Nolan is obviously a filmmaker who is much more interested in showcasing the humanity of these comic book characters and how they interact with one another. Unfortunately, in Batman Begins what we saw was a good performance from Christian Bale and nothing else really. Katy Holmes held her own, but by no means stood out. Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, and Morgan Freeman - obviously three of the most talented men in Hollywood - are never given more than brief moments of comedic relief. Caine and Oldman in particular merely serve as a backdrop for character development for Bruce Wayne. And the villains in Batman Begins were so laughably unimpressive, it makes you wonder what the hell happened during the film's development? (Sorry Liam Neeson, but even your performance in Taken outshines your work in Batman Begins). Did Nolan not know there were a slew of really great Batman villains to choose from? But thankfully, none of these faults exist within The Dark Knight. What we see is an elevation of the more than capable character actors within the film: Bale, Heath Ledger, and Oldman, to the point that all the other players within have stepped up their games in a big way. Gyllenhaal, who replaces Katy Holmes, actually feels more memorable of the two women, purely to the dedication she gives to her performance. Her struggle between the film's two heroes is one that is palpable and believable - just as the struggles of the other characters are. These performances elevate the story, allowing us as an audience to believe in what we're seeing (even the film's more unbelievable moments).

The film's action sequences are stunning and capably captured. In Batman Begins, cinematographer Wally Pfister appeared to have been drunk from watching too many Jason Bourne films. Action scenes were hard to follow with the handheld camera jumping all over the place. Here, Pfister seems to have woken up from that nightmare and instead the camera seems to have settled down some (I say some because, yes, there are a few action scenes one wishes hadn't been handled so shakily). Moments like an underground car fight/chase, a shootout inside of a building in Hong Kong, and the film's opening bank robbery are absolutely thrilling and they make the film all the more entertaining.

The film's pacing should also be commended. Nolan allows moments of tense dialogue - most of which is very well written, by the way - which builds character and subplots to be interrupted by these thrilling action sequences. What this all adds up to of course is a rather long film - long at least by most superhero movie standards - but one that doesn't feel that it's overstayed its welcome. Viewers unquestionably will be engaged by every single moment. Nolan creates such wonderful moments of tension through all of this, that when the unexpected occurs, the audience feels as blindsided as the film's characters.

And yet despite all of this, The Dark Knight is not the perfect movie so many have claimed it to be. For starters, it is so blatantly set in the real city of Chicago one wonders why even go through all the trouble of pretending it's the fictitious city of Gotham? Sure, I get it. Nolan wanted this film to be much more realistic than the previous Batman films, so logically I understand why he chose to shoot it in a real city. But he could have at least tried harder to hide the fact that the city this was shot in was Chicago. If you wanted viewers to believe Batman was in Gotham and not Chicago, maybe don't include a shot of him standing upon the Sears Tower ... just a thought.

The film does have its moments of cringeworthy dialogue and CGI usage, but most of these are few and far between. A particular moment where a boat captain on a ferry that left from Navy Pier ... I mean, Gotham Pier, says, "We're still here, which means they haven't killed us yet." It is so bad one wonders if it was suggested to Nolan by a less capable filmmaker like Michael Bay. Similarly, some of the dialogue delivered by Aaron Eckhart once his character has become Two-Face is painfully delivered. Not so much a writing error as a casting one, though. The CGI used on his face alsol at times feels a tad too distracting - especially given the amount of practical effects work used throughout the film. Imagine it, a good practical effects job of Two-Face's burns probably in the end would have looked much better.

Despite its minor issues, The Dark Knight remains unquestionably one of the best Batman movies, and even one of the best superhero movies of all time largely due to its attempts of toeing the line of realism, its thrilling and well-paced story, and of course its incredible performances - mainly that of Heath Ledger who undeniably has burned himself into the psyches of so many movie goers forever as being what they think of first when they think of the character of the Joker.

9/10

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - GHOST PROTOCOL (2011) - Review

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

Action/Adventure/Thriller
2 hours and 13 minutes
Rated: PG-13

Written by: Josh Appelbaum & André Nemec
Directed by: Brad Bird
Produced by: J.J. Abrams, Bryan Burk, and Tom Cruise

Cast:
Tom Cruise
Jeremy Renner
Simon Pegg
Paula Patton

No Plan. No Backup. No Choice.

Five years after the third Mission: Impossible movie, Tom Cruise became enthralled enough by the attention and acclaim of that sequel to agree to the studio's demands of yet another installment in the franchise. J.J. Abrams also returns from the third movie, this time being moved to the role of producer instead of director. If five years between sequels seems like a long time, remember the length of time between the first film and the second was four years, and from the second to the third was six. The Mission: Impossible franchise hasn't exactly been known for churning out prompt sequels the way something like the James Bond series has done. However, these lengthy hiatuses away from the series may actually serve in its benefit, allowing the creators to take their time and develop the stories.

Case in point: Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, a film that seamlessly combines all the wonderful attributes of the first three films of the series, and manages to tell a tale full of engaging and exciting entertainment. It's essentially the kind of film that popcorn was made for.

The first Mission: Impossible movie relied heavily on its intricate and complex storyline, expertly handled by its prolific cast (which remember included Jon Voight). Mission: Impossible II, however, chose to step away from the complicated and engaging storyline and offered us a simpler story shrouded entirely by over the top gadgets and action sequences - each filled with a nearly pornographic amount of slow motion shots. Mission: Impossible III attempted to return the franchise back to the elements of the first one, giving the series its most complex and human characterizations - mainly due to its cast as well (Tom Cruise and Philip Seymour Hoffman, as well as other series staples). However, Mission: Impossible III lacked the engaging story of the first one, therefore it fell short of what it intended to do. Having said all this, the series creative controllers clearly could see what worked and what didn't from each of these three movies, and boy did they get things right with Ghost Protocol.

The story is unquestionably less complicated than the original film's, but in many ways Ghost Protocol recognizes the core concept of Mission: Impossible II - you can have a less complex story with astounding action sequences - and it gets it right simply due to the story not being as ludicrous as the second film's was. It also helps that the action sequences aren't filmed in a ridiculous fashion, again as was the case with the second movie. Centered around international espionage (as is always the case), the film is a race against the clock to stop terrorists from firing off nuclear weapons and starting a world war. This simplicity allows the action sequences in the film to really shine through and do most - if not all - of the entertainment work, but also it is a story that is politically relevant living under the constant fear of something like this happening in our current world. Therefore, it is simple yes, but it is also engaging in an incredibly effective way.

And it is the action sequences that are undoubtedly the stars of Ghost Protocol. Every Mission: Impossible movie has boasted some big - possibly unbelievable - stunt sequence that is carried out masterfully by Tom Cruise. In Ghost Protocol, it is without a doubt the sequence about halfway through the film where Cruise's protagonist, Ethan Hunt, must free climb up the side of the Burj Khalifa in Dubai. Naturally, it's assumed green screens were used, although knowing the risks Tom Cruise has been willing to put himself in (in the film's sequel, Rogue Nation, he actually did attach himself to the outside of a plane while it took off), one can't be too sure that Cruise isn't really dangling on the outside of the building. Regardless of how the feat was captured, it is blended together marvelously and is truly a memorable moment not just from within this franchise but from action movies in general. Unfortunately, because this stunt is so grand and so breathtaking to watch, the movie does fizzle out somewhat after it. Sure, the sequences after are engaging and thrilling - particularly the end fight sequence in an automated parking garage, but they lack the sheer wow factor that the Dubai sequence held, never making the audience feel as astonished as they did halfway through the movie.

It should be added because this is an action film, I'm always willing to forgive the use of CGI and green screens a tad more than I normally should - especially if the story and performances are engaging. Some CGI sequences in the film are indeed a bit much (the Kremlin exploding mainly being the biggest one), they are easily forgivable in the grand scheme of the picture, given the genuinely good and entertaining qualities the rest of the film possesses.

Tom Cruise, an actor everyone either loves or hates, I must say handles these roles well. He's clearly a performer who is attracted to more physical roles like this, and while Ghost Protocol doesn't allow him to really flex his acting muscles the way Mission: Impossible III did, he does absolutely do a terrific job in this movie. His commitment to the stunt work and action scenes makes some of their more unbelievable qualities easier to stomach, and sequences of dialogue show his maturity as a performer over the years. You don't have to love Tom Cruise as an actor, but you undoubtedly have to admit the man has handled himself capably in some truly impressive films.

The film's villain, played by Pavel Kríz, is surely not one that is as memorable as Jon Voight's in the first film or Philip Seymour Hoffman's in the third, but Kríz does handle himself well. His character is not enormously present throughout the film, but given the risks and back stories, it is one that is certainly better written than the villains of the second and fifth Mission: Impossible movies. The supporting cast of Simon Pegg, Jeremy Renner, and Paula Patton also provide the film with many of its charms. Patton's character poses as a new, but complicated interest for Ethan, one that he ultimately denies any romantic involvement with. Renner's character is an interesting counterpoint to Ethan, due to us as an audience knowing so much about Ethan Hunt. Renner's character provides enough mystery to these heroes that is no longer present with Ethan, and yet still keeps us tied to Ethan as the main protagonist. And Simon Pegg, of course, is as funny and entertaining as ever. His witty one liners never feel stupid or annoying and certainly challenge Cruise's more stone faced moments with some much appreciated humor.

When it is all said and done Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is a damn impressive action movie, boasting to be nothing more than that. It succeeds in surpassing most of its predecessors and follower in the franchise due to its understanding and utilizing all the elements that worked in the other films, and weaving them together in an intriguing enough and purely entertaining storyline. Riddled with fun performances and some mind-blowing action sequences, it will be hard to beat this quality of filmmaking in any subsequent Mission: Impossible movies to come.

8/10

THE VOID (2016) - Review

The Void

Horror/Mystery/Sci-Fi
1 hour and 30 minutes
Not Rated

Written by: Jeremy Gillespie & Steven Kostanski
Directed by: Jeremy Gillespie & Steven Kostanski
Produced by: Johnathan Bronfman & Casey Walker

Cast:
Aaron Poole
Kenneth Welsh
Daniel Fathers
Kathleen Munroe
Ellen Wong

There is a Hell. This is worse.

When it comes to tales of Lovecraftian inspired cosmic dread, the horror genre is entirely hit or miss. Films like Ridley Scott's Alien, Stuart Gordon's Re-Animator and From Beyond (both direct adaptations of Lovecraft stories), Lucio Fulci's The Beyond and City of the Living Dead, John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness, and of course Clive Barker's Hellraiser and its subsequent sequel Hellbound: Hellraiser II are all examples of cosmic horror done wonderfully right. However, when this theme is done poorly it is done in the most disappointing fashion, examples of this include Stuart Gordon's Dagon (another direct Lovecraft adaptation), all of Alien's sequels, most of Hellraiser's sequels, and of course Lucio Fulci's The House by the Cemetery. 

What exactly is a story of Lovecraftian inspired cosmic dread, though? For those who may be unfamiliar, turn of the century horror/science-fiction writer HP Lovecraft wrote stories dealing with, well, exactly that: cosmic dread. The notion that there are things that are older and wiser beyond our existence within the universe (or other universes or dimensions or whatever). The idea that mankind is merely a cosmic joke, an insect crawling across the ground holding no significance to the greater scheme of things, while something larger and perhaps more malevolent watches and waits to pluck the wings off of us. This, in the most simplified explanation I can write, is Lovecraftian cosmic horror.

The Void is one hundred percent a film that is interested in this kind of horror. It must be noted that this is entirely refreshing in this particular moment of cinema. Cosmic horror has not been explored heavily since the 1980s and even early 1990s. Today, the horror genre is interested in cheap, low-budget, slasher and ghost stories, preferably ones filmed entirely in the found-footage style of Cannibal Holocaust or The Blair Witch Project (the problem being that these often are nowhere near as intelligent as those two films). Other films have tried to push away from this, just like The Void. The Babadook brilliantly undertook themes of parental fears and anxieties and wove them into a story that is perhaps one of the best supernatural horror films ever made since The Exorcist and Suspiria. The Witch also attempted this, however, it surprisingly failed on many levels due to its promising opening sequences that unfortunately fizzled out into a boring, tensionless, conclusion that proved to be much more laughable than haunting. The Void, while admittedly not interested in making societal or human claims like The Babadook or Get Out, does succeed in its attempt to capture a story encapsulated in older genre conventions while simultaneously remaining something entirely new and different.

Seasoned horror fans will undoubtedly see references to films and filmmakers they are familiar with. Specific moments in The Void call to mind John Carpenter's Prince of Darkness, Assault on Precinct 13, and The Thing, as well as the first two Hellraiser films. And it wouldn't be a true body-horror, blood and guts fest unless it made some sort of homage to the films of David Cronenberg. The film's denouement even feels like a direct reference to Lucio Fulci's The Beyond's similar conclusion. But here's the thing: the line between paying homage and blatantly ripping something off is very thin, and The Void manages to remain entirely within the homage camp purely due to its unique and different storyline.

And that's the most wonderful aspect about The Void: its story. While it will more than likely leave many audience members frustrated and perhaps even irritated, it cannot be denied there is nothing quite like it anywhere else. We live in a world where every horror film is riddled with spoon-fed explanations regarding their own plots. Audiences sit and wait until toward the third act of films where some character will patiently explain the madness of what was endured on screen for the past hour and a half to two hours. The Void, refreshingly, doesn't do this. It is a film purely out of Lovecraft's style, meant to make you wonder and walk away feeling disturbed, frightened, and shaken by what you just saw and yet not be entirely sure why. That is its most brilliant attribute, and it was one that has painfully been absent from the bulk of the horror genre now for decades.

Despite a low-budget, the film never feels cheap. Going along with the cosmic horror aspects, the creature effects are both executed and captured brilliantly. Undoubtedly, the bulk of this film's budget went into the special effects - the vast majority of which are done with practical effects work. These creatures and beings are truly horrific, gory, and amorphous things that will of course bring to mind tales of cosmic horrors one has read or seen in the past. Cinematographer Samy Inayeh captures these animatronic and puppet beasts brilliantly by hiding them in shadow, only dowsing them with light for the briefest of moments, and keeping shots of them mainly setup as close-ups, thus creating a disorienting feeling that the audience shares with the characters. Can we believe our own eyes? It's a terrific way to film the unexplainable - allowing the audience's mind to fill in eighty to ninety percent of the blanks. And while some effects work remains more impressive than others (the skinless doctor perhaps riding that previously mentioned line of homage and ripoff a little too closely to Hellbound: Hellraiser II) the overall effects work achieved in this film is absolutely astonishing.

Also done terrifically well is the film's direction. Like the tales of Lovecraft, The Void is a story about characters being forced to encounter a dark cosmic truth, one that - as they learn more and more about it - drives them further and further into madness. Questions and realities begin to form and fade away before the eyes of the film's characters and, by default, the audience. Again, this type of storytelling is hard to achieve on film, and yet filmmakers Jeremy Gillespie and Steven Kostanski handle it terrifically well. Moments where the camera violently shakes, the sound design cues us as viewers, the increasing lack of lighting, and of course the monsters and effects work are all things that help us as an audience to understand that this is a story driving toward a complex and inexplicable point - madness. 

The performances within The Void are also handled well, and are actually quite believable. Considering there is no way of knowing how anyone could or would react in a situation such as this, the characters are developed enough through the performances and the slight backstories that we are given throughout for us as an audience to feel that these are authentic characters. Moments of humor and sarcastic comments are peppered in throughout the beginning of the film - which of course seems real given that many humans use humor and sarcasm to disarm horrific, violent, and unexplainable situations. As tensions rise and things become much more grave in their implications, of course the characters begin to comprehend the otherworldly terror they have been immersed in, and their reactions shift to purely survival based motivations. Each actor handles these shifts and deliveries with a great amount of professionalism.

While it will unquestionably leave some frustrated, irritated, and perhaps even disappointed - The Void is a motion-picture that, released in the current climate that the horror genre has become, is one hundred percent purely refreshing. Its callbacks to older cinematic films and filmmakers never seem like ripoff moments, and it may very well remain a quintessential example of how to film a pure Lovecraftian story of cosmic horror and dread in a brilliant manner. 

9.5/10

FOXY BROWN (1974) - Review

Foxy Brown

Action/Crime/Thriller
1 hour and 32 minutes
Rated: R

Written by: Jack Hill
Directed by: Jack Hill
Produced by: Buzz Feitshans

Cast:
Pam Grier
Antonio Fargas
Peter Brown
Terry Carter

Don't mess aroun' with Foxy Brown

Coming fresh out of working with legendary filmmaker Roger Corman, writer/director Jack Hill and actress Pam Grier seemed like a genuine match made in cinematic heaven. Despite their first two collaborations, The Big Doll House and The Big Bird Cage being only slightly more memorable entries in the rather dividing genre of women-in-prison exploitation films, it was their third collaboration, the blaxploitation flick Coffy that really showcased their brilliance. With a generic revenge story as its foundation, Coffy is a motion-picture that managed to brilliantly tackle countless societal woes within one film and comment on them accordingly, including the women's struggle as well as the struggle of African Americans within the United States - in particular the heroin epidemic of the 1970s and how it impacted that minority community. So, not wanting to break a formula that had brought them to an outcome of something successful, Jack Hill and Pam Grier teamed up one more time to make another motion-picture that was in the same vein as Coffy, mainly a revenge blaxploitation film that attempted to make intelligent social commentary. That film was Foxy Brown.

Foxy Brown in itself is not a bad movie - and in comparison to its definitively more mature predecessor, Coffy, it has actually remained the more popular motion-picture throughout the years. And it isn't hard to see why. The film is flash-bang entertainment at its finest. The story is once again a generic enough revenge epic that capably grips its audience from the start with promises of high octane action. And it delivers. From the heroine engaging in shoot outs, vehicular attacks, violent revenge on some redneck rapists, and an all out brawl in a lesbian bar, there isn't a dull moment in Foxy Brown. But perhaps that is its greatest problem. It's too much flash. And not enough smarts.

Comparatively, Coffy was the story of one woman's (an African American woman, at that) revenge against dope dealers who had gotten her younger sister hooked on the drug. What she encountered along the way was the systemic racism that has been plaguing America for years. Mainly whites, and sometimes minorities, buying their way to the top, keeping minority communities suppressed through a useless war on drugs that actual led to backroom deals between drug cartels and politicians, not to mention corrupt police officials. The film was brilliant for tackling all of this at once. Foxy Brown in many ways tries to deal with these same issues. We see the comfortably rich (white) drug lords who have bought off politicians and law enforcement - through prostitution it ought to be noted, a topic that Coffy also tackled - who use their positions of power to keep minority groups hooked on drugs. Out of sight and yet totally dependent upon them. Unfortunately, it doesn't have any of the shock and reveal that Coffy showcased. In other words, Foxy Brown never hides itself from being a fantasy. Its commentary on political corruption and racial divide unfortunately get lost in the mix of all of the film's flash-bang entertainment. Again it's too much flash and not enough smarts. To its credit, Foxy Brown does showcase African American community leaders (they're never directly referred to as Black Panthers but the vigilante justice theme they proclaim indicates the idea that this is exactly the kind of group Hill is commenting on) fighting back against systemic oppression. The film shows these men going undercover, waiting until they find drug dealers so that they can be physically removed by force from their communities. If Coffy was meant to showcase the problems mentioned above, then perhaps Foxy Brown was meant to showcase how to deal with them - even if those solutions are perhaps considerably extreme, which makes sense given the extremity of those problems.

The film does have a lot to admire. As stated above, the action sequences are top notch, especially for a low-budget film. Pam Grier is stunning as always to watch in fight scenes. A country girl by her own acclaim, Grier never had a problem with doing the vast majority of her own stunt work. She's as nimble as a cat and as tough as any leading man. And yet Grier also earns her title as one of the sexiest actresses to ever work in cinema. Her costumes, designed entirely by Ruthie West, showcase her beauty to all of its lengths and strengths. She is just as stunning in a pair of typically 70s overalls as she is in the jaw dropping blue-green dress seen in all of the film's posters. Admittedly while it is dated, the film's saturation of 1970s' style has become quite endearing. The film's supporting cast is what to be expected from a low-budget blaxploitation film, meaning some performances are good, some are bad, and yet none of them are great. The closest one to great is delivered by Antonio Fargas, who perhaps by sharing nearly every scene with Grier was able to elevate his own performance to higher standards. Still, his skills are completely overpowered by Grier's. Genre legend Sid Haig delivers a terrific and entertaining cameo as a dope mule pilot and he's as charming as ever. In Coffy, Haig had the rare opportunity of playing the film's heavy, a task he handled exceptionally well. Here, he delivers the lovable comical goofball that even in some of his darker works, has often been what he is pegged to perform.

While it will never be as intelligent regarding social content as its predecessor, Coffy, was, Foxy Brown is an extraordinarily entertaining bit of blaxploitation cinema that certainly showcases the talents of its leading lady and its writer/director, even if those talents aren't being showcased to their fullest capabilities.

6.5/10

THE HOUSE BY THE CEMETERY (1981) - Review

The House by the Cemetery

Horror
1 hour and 26 minutes
Unrated

Written by: Lucio Fulci, Giorgio Mariuzzo, and Dardano Sacchetti
Directed by: Lucio Fulci
Produced by: Fabrizio De Angelis

Cast
Catriona MacColl
Paolo Malco
Ania Pieroni
Giovanni Frezza
Silvia Collatina

Past and present collide in a vortex of fear!

The late 1970s and early 1980s was an era that bequeathed a great deal of success and notoriety upon Italian gore-hound filmmaker Lucio Fulci. Beginning with his 1979 response to George Romero's Dawn of the Dead, Fulci cranked out horror films that began to earn his name a great deal of attention both at home in Italy as well as in foreign markets such as the United States, England, and Japan. Zombie, City of the Living Dead, The Black Cat, and The Beyond to this day are all films that often come up first when discussing Fulci's oeuvre. And there is good reason for this. Mainly, they are truly terrific films. Following those four films mentioned, producer Fabrizio De Angelis knew it best not to screw up with his winning formula and funded Fulci and screenwriter Dardano Sacchetti for another project: The House by the Cemetery.

Like both City of the Living Dead and The Beyond, Sacchetti and Fulci borrowed many ideas within The House by the Cemetery from turn of the century horror writer HP Lovecraft - specifically, from Lovecraft's story The Shunned House. However, like the previous two films, Fulci and Sacchetti merely pick grand ideas, names and other obscure things from Lovecraft that horror fans can later see they just wink at more than anything. The story for The House by the Cemetery is more Fulci's and Sacchetti's ideas on child psychology than it is anything HP Lovecraft. Its more brilliant moments are scenes where the child protagonist, Bob, must confront situations that most children in the world find to be horrifying, mainly fear of old houses and cellars. Like most Fulci films, the story is not the important focus, but rather the ideas and the technical aspects. As far as ideas go, The House by the Cemetery had an interesting premise - child psychology - but it is not executed effectively. If Fulci and Sacchetti had really wanted this to be the main drive of the film, then it should have been a movie completely glued to its child protagonist. Instead what we get is a movie that follows the parents around more than the child. There should have been more doubt in our minds regarding the child's fears so that by the end of the movie the payoff of those fears being reality would have been much more haunting. Because we understand the child's fears regarding the house are reality the entire movie, the big ideas behind The House by the Cemetery fall flat upon execution.

The movie's technical aspects, however, are praise worthy - and despite some of the film's blander moments, are quite thrilling to see. A woman being stabbed through the back of the head with a blade, another woman being pierced by an iron fire-stick, and a babysitter's head being sliced off are all some of the standout gore moments within the film - and honestly showcase some of the best effects work ever done in Fulci's career. A bloody confrontation between Paolo Malco and an obviously fake animatronic bat showcases Fulci's flair for slapstick. Lingering shots on the fake animal recall the close ups of the clearly fake, face-eating tarantulas in The Beyond. Fulci knew these fake animals look silly and he wants his audience in on the joke as well. A more thrilling sequence involves no gore at all, but the film's villain pressing young actor Giovanni Frezza's head up against the cellar door as Paolo Malco tries to break through it with an axe from the other side. A savvy audience member would never put child killing - even protagonist child killing - past Lucio Fulci, and it is a sequence that will surely cause anyone watching the film to hold their breath during its entirety. 

The film's overall look should be commended as well. Cinematographer Sergio Salvati, one of the most underrated cinematographers of all time, delivers everything and then some. From the film's violent opening sequence, the atmosphere is set. As the film progresses, Salvati utilizes more and more diffusion, thus making the films "happy" ending all the more confusing. Did Bob really escape the evil clutches of Dr. Freudstein, or does the diffused, dream-like quality of the film suggest that Bob really died in the cellar and now his spirit lives on with Mae and Mrs. Freudstein? Vincenzo Tomassi, the best of the editors to ever work with Lucio Fulci, solidifies why he was the best man to piece together Fulci's works. The film's pacing is terrific, and if the film drags it is only due to the lack of inspiration involving its story and not due to editorial error.

Catriona MacColl is stunning as always, but as the troubled mother Lucy, she is actually less interesting than previous characters she played for Fulci in both City of the Living Dead and The Beyond. The same can be said of Paolo Malco playing the driven father Norman - mainly that he would go on to deliver a better performance in Fulci's giallo flick The New York Ripper. But why is that? These are characters who on paper ought to be really damn interesting. Norman is a man driven by his obsession to understand what happened to his colleague Stevens by discovering the truth about the sinister Dr. Freudstein. And Lucy is a woman that has struggled with some sort of emotional breakdown in the past. Yet these characters - including Giovanni Frezza's portrayal of their son Bob - lack any sort of depth. The most obvious explanation for this is Fulci's non-commitment to character as a filmmaker. It is not an important aspect to him, at least not at this moment in his career (his earlier spaghetti western Four of the Apocalypse and giallo Don't Torture a Duckling might suggest otherwise). And because of this, the actors weren't given the direction needed to fully fledge these interesting figures into a believable state of life.

While it is often discussed as one of Fulci's most remembered movies, The House by the Cemetery is a much more hollow film than previous or subsequent works of Lucio Fulci's career. It contained all the right pieces - including interesting characters, big ideas placed at the core of the story, some of the director's best special effects work including some truly harrowing sequences, and brilliant cinematography and editing - and yet The House by the Cemetery still falls short of all of its potential. Perhaps had it been a film delivered by a less genius Italian horror filmmaker than Fulci it would be something to praise, but as it stands as a Lucio Fulci movie, it is far from the filmmaker's best ... but certainly it is not his worst either.

4.5/10