![]() ![]() ![]() But it was a development that did at least inject some energy into filmmaking by imposing almost Oulipan constraints. I was unimpressed by The Blair Witch Project. Now personally I’m no fan of “shaky cam” filmmaking. Then there is the direction by Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza. It’s the best kind of horror show: frightening because it’s so real. It’s entirely natural - everyone’s flesh starts to slip and slide as we age - but it’s not something we’re used to seeing on film. Why? Because naked old women look scary and grotesque. Let’s face it, this is something we do not want to see. And both tap into an obvious but rarely addressed horror: the bodies of old women seen in their underwear. You can almost think of the Medeiros crone as the Jack Spratt half of a grisly couple, with the heftier old lady zombie on the first floor being the other. She’s right up there with the little girl who comes crawling out of the television set in The Ring. And that skinny hag (actually a male actor) is one of the scariest and most original movie monsters I’ve seen. Even better, in my opinion, than the conclusion of The Silence of the Lambs. That night vision ending works very well. ![]() But it’s still a persuasive transformation, from girl-next-door camera cutie to stripping down to a tank top (what has become an official uniform of the last girl in recent horror films), her hair increasingly dishevelled, her body covered with greater amounts of sweat and blood, and finally appearing as an almost feral final survivor caught in night vision, like some rodent that has tripped a camera set up outside its forest burrow. ![]() She was typecast since she was a television personality already, and I think she was helped by shooting the film in sequence so her transformation could play out more naturally. In the first place, there’s a great performance by Manuela Velasco as reporter Angela Vidal. Despite this confusion - which may not have been that confusing to a Spanish audience more attuned to mystical terrors - there is an awful lot to like here. But he keeps shooting right till the end. Of course, the other part of the premise that strains credibility is Pablo the cameraman’s sense of duty to “get it all on tape.” At some point one would think a survival instinct would take over and you’d drop the camera, either to run faster or protect yourself. So I’m content to only know as much as the people stuck in the building. Let’s face it, the business of the penthouse being full of newspaper clippings and a tape recording of the professor’s experiments is really straining to introduce explication. Given the premise of the film any further attempt at explanation would be awkward. But this muddle doesn’t really bother me. As for the emaciated hag at the end, one supposes she is the possessed girl now all grown up, but how can we be sure? And who is that kid in the attic? You’ll have to wait for the sequel to find out. Is it a virus? A case of demonic possession? Some combination of the two? The sequel would try to explain, and tie itself in knots doing so. It’s not clear if the business about Max the dog being infected is just a red herring or is related in some way to what’s going on (and how would Max have been infected anyway? by an insect bite?). I think if you really want to enjoy it you should forget about the sequels (a plan that might also help you enjoy The Matrix more). Going back and watching this one again I was more impressed. I then saw the first two sequels ( Rec 2 and the less directly related Rec 3) and was very disappointed, both in terms of the films themselves and the light they shed on the original. I liked this movie the first time I saw it, but found it confusing. How do you render the title of this film when writing about it? Rec? REC? Or do you have to include the red dot as well? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |