Phone (폰)

While outdated technology may slightly hinder the tensity of this film, Ahn Byeong-ki's Phone is certainly still able to deliver scares. Released in 2002, the film was able to make use of a technology that was just starting to be adopted by the mainstream.

There are a couple factors that contribute to the horror in this film. On a basic level, there are quite a few instances of shock horror spread throughout the film. Intended to make the audience panic, if only for a second, these instances heighten the intensity of the situation. While some of these moments were predictable, one or two actually took me by surprise. And these moments weren't just random either; they still connected to the story.

The use of technology as a transmission of death is also quite horrific. Phone turns that annoying ringtone that everyone knows into something to be feared. I think the best part about it though is that there was deeper meaning to the horror behind the phone. While the back story might be a bit cheesy, it is a common theme and the audience cane easily understand the gravity of the situation. So, when the spirit possesses the phone to take revenge, it's more believable because of the familiarity of the adultery.  In addition to this, the cinematography accentuated the themes of the film. All of the scenes that relate to the vengeance of either the high schooler or the mother are washed in a cool blue, which highlights the cold, calculated revenge that takes place. And it appears that any connections to the father's adultery are colored in a warm orange color (although this wash isn't as obvious as the blues). I think this was done to hint at the real cause of all this trouble (the mother's attack on the high schooler).

I was quite unsettled by the Electra complex theme that was used in the film as well. I think it's safe to say it's pretty weird to see a five year old girl try to make out with her father. Eun Seo-woo (the little girl) does a terrific job acting like a demonic high schooler. Her facial expressions (eyes in particular) were quite unsettling-- you expect the child to have a baby face, but once possessed she does nothing but glare at her mother.

Phone is a pretty decent film with a few good scares thrown in. While not on the same level as other Korean horrors like A Tale of Two Sisters or Bunshinsaba, it is definitely worth a watch.

Let Me In vs. Let The Right One In

I originally intended to review these separately, as I was hoping that Let Me In would contain enough differences from the original Swedish film. However, while Matt Reeves' take on John Lindqvist's novel Let The Right One In is a well made horror/romance flick, it doesn't quite live up to Alfredson's version.

I'll start with the good things about Let Me In. The cinematography of this film is quite astounding. The cinematographer made use of blues and oranges to convey the theme of the film: innocence. Oranges are used when either a lack of innocence is shown or someone's innocence is taken advantage of. For example, Owen's bedroom telescoping sessions are all orange. The tunnel in which Abby attacks a random jogger has an orange tinge surrounded by darkness.

On the other side, blues are used when the character is innocently unaware of the true happenings or believes their actions to be innocent. The prime example for this is Thomas. We see him slit a man's neck to collect blood for Abbey, but as we come to find out, he does it out of love for her. It's her need, it keeps her alive, and so the act seems so innocent. While the colors are used interestingly to depict the theme, they also help create a horrific mood. Thomas' blood collections are cold; there are no feelings towards the victims. Abby's attacks are warm, which intensifies the heated moments.

That's about as much as I can say for Let Me In. What's really disappointing is that Reeves didn't take any initiative creating his own take on the source story. The script is literally almost the same as Let The Right One In, with the only major changes being names and locations. He does start in media res, which allows the film to have a tense opening. But the rest of the script follows the Swedish version almost exactly. And unfortunately for Reeves, Alfredson's version comes off as much more horrific.

My biggest complaint about Let Me In is the pacing compared to Let The Right One In. Alfredson deliberately created a slow pace, which reflected the isolated area in which the characters lived. But Reeves' pacing makes the dialogue seemed forced, even though the child actors are pretty darn good. Abby's kills in Let Me In also bother me; I understand the jerky nature was to convey a more supernatural threat (along with the effects on her face), but the great thing about Eli is that she seemed more human. That which is more familiar but is not in reality is more prone to invoke horror. And while I enjoyed the cinematography of Let Me In, Let The Right One In had astounding visuals with great thanks to the natural location. The film was largely unbiased in it's lighting; instead of blues and oranges there was nothing but white, which accurately represents the innocence of everyone in the film. That way, the viewer can make their own decisions on the motives and feelings of the characters. Finally (and this may be nit-picky), Let Me In was way too obvious about the reality of the situation (Thomas being a lover of Abby from childhood). Let The Right One In was much more subtle about the true horror of the story, while Let Me In kept dropping hints throughout in a forceful manner.

With all this being said, Let Me In is certainly not a bad film; it just happens that this is one of the many cases where the original is superior.

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer

John McNaughton's first feature-length film debuted at the end of the 80's slasher era with the tagline "He's not Freddy, He's not Jason... He's Real!" Henry certainly isn't Freddy or Jason, but he's quite arguably worse. 

Horror films that affect me the most are those that have a serious sense of realism (which is why I normally prefer psychological horrors). The most influential factor of this film is that Henry (Michael Rooker) could be any guy. He could be your neighbor. Your boss. Anyone. And that is truly frightening. While Henry may have some shocking moments, there is mainly an awful sense of dread that arises from the very beginning and remains with the viewer even after the film is over. We know there is a killer out there. We see what he's done. And it could happen again.

Equally disturbing is the fact that Henry seems to have no good reason to kill; he does it to pass the time, even taking along his friend (Otis) to join in on the fun. He seems to lack any sense of humanity-- that is, until anything sexual is thrown in his face. He defends Becky twice from her own brother, even killing him to protect her. However, was this because he cares for her? With his back story in mind, it appears that any sexual acts remind him of his mother.  But Henry doesn't specifically kill rapists and perverts-- he only stops those acts if they are sprung upon him. So it seems like Henry's not out for revenge like Freddy or Jason; he's just bored. 

My favorite part of the film was the portrayal of Henry's past murders. The image of the murdered bodies with the sounds of their last few minutes of life made the deaths seem so trivial, as if it's something that just happens. The thought of death as just a thing is pretty scary. These scenes also add to Henry's anonymity. The bodies were all that were left for friends or loved ones to find, with no trace of who committed the crime. I'd almost prefer that all the murders were portrayed this way, but a lack of the videotaped family-intrusion would be no good.