Spoiler: John Dies at the End

John Dies at the End is now available on VOD about a month before it releases in theaters. Pointing out the flaws in a movie like this is like refusing to go to bed with Marilyn Monroe because she has a mole. All genre classics are flawed, from Escape to New York to Evil Dead 2. Given enough time, these movies’ flaws become so endearing that drunken frat boys excitedly point the flaws out at movie parties. I suspect John Dies at the End may have launched itself on a similar trajectory, though David Wong’s serialized novel-thing somehow has better comedic timing. Questionable CGI aside, this movie’s a fine crowd-pleaser.

Don Coscarelli was the director who broke into the movies when he made the ultra-low budget Phantasm, a horror film about a demonic undertaker whose bidding was done by inter-dimensional dwarfs and sentient spheres. For me, it’s not a very rewatchable movie, but I have a soft spot for its first sequel. Coscarelli also made Bubba Ho-Tep, which supposes the real Elvis Presley (Bruce Campbell) ended up in a nursing home through an unlikely series of events (it was an impersonator who died). Teaming up with Ossie Davis, playing an elderly black man who thinks he’s JFK, Elvis must go toe-to-toe with a mummy who’s eating the souls of the nursing home’s residents.

As he did with that film, Coscarelli once again adapts a bizarre story written by a little-known cult writer. John Dies at the End is somehow even harder to summarize than Bubba Ho-Tep—and apparently harder to film as significant sections of the source material are omitted. It’s about a couple of slackers who are addicted to a drug called Soy Sauce that makes them see things from another dimension. There’s an alien subplot, too, all of which unfolds in a confusing order of events, true to the source material. The movie also features Paul Giamatti, Clancy Brown, and Doug Jones, who you may not recognize without the monster makeup he wore in Hellboy and Pan’s Labyrinth.

Just watch the trailer. If that appeals to you, then watch the movie. I have to go now. My hot dog is ringing.

Sinister isn’t false advertising

Sinister opens in grainy 8mm film. There’s a family of four hooded and bound. There are nooses around their necks, the ropes of which are draped over a tree branch above. A pole saw enters frame and cuts another branch where the other ends of the nooses are tied. As that branch goes down, the family is slowly (gruelingly) strung up. It’s an effective image and by now you should already know if this is a movie you want to see.

Enter Ellison (Ethan Hawke), his wife, and two children. They’re the new family moving into the very house where that murder took place. Ellison is a true crime writer who dreams of becoming the next Capote. He got a taste of fame a few books ago, but proved to be a hack in the meantime. Ridiculously, his wife doesn’t know the history behind the house they’re moving into. Although it’s common for men to surprise their wives with a new house, doing so in real life should be automatic grounds for divorce.

Eventually Hawke’s character stumbles upon a box in the attic containing a bunch of films and a home movie projector. The canisters are labeled innocently enough: Family Hangin’ Out ’11. Pool Party ’66. Sleepy Time ’98. BBQ ’79. My personal favorite is Lawn Work ’86, which takes creative liberties with a lawnmower. I doubt Honda paid for this product placement, by the way.

Ellison calls the police, but when he’s put on hold, he catches sight of his best-selling book on a nearby shelf. Fearing a scoop is about to slip through his fingers, he convinces himself to hang up. Be assured there will be one paper-thin excuse after another to keep him and his entire family in danger. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be a movie.

Things do indeed get sinister. Eventually Ellison gets in touch with an occult expert (Vincent D’Onofrio) who says the symbols seen in each of the home movies reference a child-consuming demon. Demon or not, considering the scorpions and snakes found in Ellison’s attic, I would have moved out of the house on day one. There are also creepy children in the movie. Like creepy clowns, I can’t be the only one who’s getting bored of creepy children in films like this. I’m also getting bored of writers for main characters and creepy home movies.

At the end of the day, it’s a watchable picture, just a little slow. The term the filmmakers would prefer is “suspense-building,” but I don’t think it’s good enough to hold a moviegoer’s attention between the candy bar scenes. The film is certainly sinister, but it isn’t scary. I’m not entirely disappointed I saw it, but it arrives at a predictable ending that has nothing to say.

Prometheus (2012)

The year is 2089. Scientists have just uncovered caveman drawings which somehow depict a far-away star system. Fast forward a few years later and the scientists are on a ship to the star system, aiming to touch down on a planet remarkably like Earth. Fans of the franchise can probably already guess that the Weyland Corporation is footing the bill.

Ridley Scott’s Prometheus reminds me of The History Channel’s Ancient Aliens. Like that show, there are huge leaps of logic. 2001: A Space Odyssey was great because it found a way to balance Arthur C. Clarke’s rigorous science with Kubrick’s interest in mysticism. Prometheus, on the other hand, dumps the science entirely while crapping out unbelievable woo which doesn’t just aim to explain the origin of the aliens, but humanity itself. I just find it embarrassing that one of the most beloved science fiction franchises is now entwined with the idiotic pseudoscience made popular by Chariots of the Gods.

Scott plays well with the canon established since his original film, but Prometheus isn’t sure whether it wants to be a horror film, like the quiet original, or an action movie like James Cameron’s bombastic sequel. The result is a constant tug-of-war between the two styles, which makes for an unusual pace. If you’re expecting a tonal prequel to Alien or Aliens, you’re going to be disappointed, if not a little discombobulated. Having said that, it’s probably the most inspired effort since 1986, though with stinkers like Alien 3 and Resurrection, is that really saying much?

Charlize Theron has never seemed more robotic. (Perhaps she’s an android? If so, what the hell does that add?) In behind-the-scenes footage, producers claimed the writers fleshed out her character when they learned she was playing the part. If this is true, I can’t imagine how one-dimensional the character must have been in the first place.

Guy Pierce, playing the founder of Weyland Corporation, appears in old-age makeup that looks so phony you don’t accept him as a character, but an unnecessary special effect. There’s no need to have young men playing old men unless you see the character young and old in the same movie—even then, it’s almost always more effective when you just get two actors to… you know, act.

Meanwhile, the trailer gives away more than it should have, much more than I’m giving away here. If I say anymore about what I’m referring to, I’ll be spoiling it myself. But if you’ve seen the trailer and you have a decent memory, you’ll probably be able to put two and two together long before you were supposed to figure it out.

I do want to point out that Michael Fassbender as David the android is probably the most intriguing character of the entire seventeen-man crew, but most of that comes down to the mystery surrounding him. Does he have human emotions? If not, why does he act the way he does? Why does he idolize Peter O’Toole? Is he merely programmed to behave as if he idolizes O’Toole? The oddest thing about David is the fact he seems to be more advanced than Ian Holm’s depiction of Ash in the original film, which is set nearly a hundred years after this one.

At any rate, there’s quite a bit good in Prometheus, too, but I don’t want to spoil the fun. It’s not good enough to be a classic, but it’s good enough to go see it in theaters.

Romance Novels… In Space?

Granted, I don’t know much, but I didn’t know science fiction/romance novels were popular. Okay, I didn’t even know they existed. Maybe I’m living under a rock.

Who is the market here? I’m not saying women are incapable of enjoying science fiction, but do the women who enjoy reading soft porn… enjoy stories set in space? Is it actually men who are reading these things?

A couple of these covers look like your average, unromantic SF story.

2025 update: This post originally linked to an io9 article. Almost all links to classic Gizmodo articles are broken these days. You can read more about the restoration of this blog here. Long story short: I’m cleaning up broken formatting and removing dead links.