Books, kageoween, Reviews, Uncategorized

Kageoween: Carmilla Book Review

Leave a comment

INTRODUCTION
     Carmilla is one of the earliest vampire stories and the inspiration behind Bram Stoker’s Dracula, apparently. Besides this, the only other known source for vampire mythos prior to Dracula is Varney the Vampire, a penny dreadful, which was sold on the streets for a penny back in the 1800’s.

     Much has been said about this novel, mostly the balls on J. Sheridan LeFanu, for adding Sappho eroticism in a time frame when such would have been on par with child molesting today.

     So, what does it come off as in 2018 and is it really any good? The answer, probably won’t surprise you!

STORY
     A young woman lives with a family when strange occurrences start to, well, occur, leading to a less than suspenseful build up to the climax of wow, vampire.

PROSE
     The prose has moments of sheer beauty throughout its page. If written in a modern voice, I think the story would fail even more. Part of the charm is that 1800’s style narration with beautiful prose in some places and misplaced telling aspects that could of be written better.

CHARACTERS
     The characters are mostly shallow, but still enough to get an idea for their personalities. No one character really sticks out in my mind, except for the father of the young woman who is friends with the vampress title character. He is a weird scientist of sorts and I don’t mean a literal scientist, I mean, he looks for the simplest explanation of a situation, but in the same breathe is glad that it wasn’t witches. I like this weird, juxtaposition between science and superstition. The original inspiration for Van Helsing is also present, but he isn’t as developed as he is in Dracula, but you can see where the inspiration came from, but it was less homage and more a “Hold my beer” moment, as Bram Stoker showcased he could do it better.

SUBTEXT
     Unlike other reviewers, most of whom are also male, I don’t find lesbianism to be a subtext of this book. I think it is inferred by men with an inkling of homoeroticism for other men, who have projected their desires on two characters.

     I know Vampires are known for their sensual nature, but they’re predators mostly, they’re also dead, thus they really don’t have a sexuality at all. I also find it weird that these same reviewers never spot male homosexual subtext in Dracula or other novels about vampires. Interview with the Vampire comes to mind with blatant male homoerotism, of which no one ever points out or holds up in esteem. The homosexuality is especially noticeable in the movie of Interview with the Vampire, where the sexual ambiguity between Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise is so thick, you could cut the fuckin thing with a knife. Just like this book, 90’s male homosexuality would have been considered loathsome and horrible, but no praise for pushing the envelope there.

CONCLUSION
     This book is really short and sparse of form, while giving some of the future tropes for the vampire mythos that we either all know and love or find to be horrible clichés. I wouldn’t say Bram Stoker was so much inspired by it, as being a flat out plagiarist on quite a bit, while extrapolating with better fleshed out characters, subtext and themes. Ironically, Bram himself would later be plagiarized with Nosferatu, a lawsuit ensued which he would win, even though he really had no grounds, notwithstanding his own plagiarism. Still, the story is good, the prose is decent and while the lesbian subtext is inferred by Horny men, the book still has a lot going for it and is well worth picking up.

3 out of 5 stars.

kageoween, Movies, Reviews

Kageoween: American Psycho Movie Review

Leave a comment

INTRODUCTION

     This movie came out two days after my 14th birthday and I can recall wanting to go see it. I didn’t get the chance to and ended up ordering it on PPV months later. My first impression was about how much I loathed the flick and how slow it was. I like dark comedy, but this was devoid of humor. What was funny about it? The pacing was wrong, the acting atrocious and it was devoid of any story whatsoever. It was, in my mind, how not to do a slasher flick.
Well, having just re-watched it for the first time since the year 2000, the question of, does it hold up and is it ultimately better than I remember needs to be answered.

STORY
     Same basic story as the novel. Young yuppie, wallstreet cunt, does too much cocaine, desires to fit in and does a bunch of boring, mundane things, like rent porn, exercise, have random outburst over shitty business cards that anyone but him would find virtually impossible to tell apart from one another, fuck prostitutes and oh yeah, he moonlights as a killer.

ACTING
     The acting is still fucking atrocious. I’ve seen better acting on Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood than this snooze fest of a flick. It is one of the few movies where the leads are upstaged by minor characters, proving the age old adage of “there are no small roles, just small actors” correct. A lot of people praised Christian Bale as nailing the role of Patrick Bateman, but compared to his roles in other movies, he really seems to have no fucking clue what the hell he is doing in this flick. The only person worse, is Jared Leto. Thank fuckin’ God that both of them finally learned to act, but this isn’t the film that would showcase their talents.

VISUALS
     The visuals suck and don’t hold up. The lighting is poor, the sound quality on the Amazon prime version was complete shit. Is that a fuckin 90’s Glock in his hand towards the end? What the fuck? Then again, how could you tell, almost all Glocks look alike, which I think is the overly subtle joke, that few people will understand, that just like all the people are alike, so too are the inanimate objects. Besides that, there was a few, seemingly, era inaccurate aspects, which I won’t waste my time point out them all, because there isn’t a point to it. Other than that, there isn’t much to say other than that there are 80’s B-movies on VHS that look better than this eyesore.

CONCLUSION
     What is there to say about this movie, after nearly 20 years? It doesn’t hold up is what I have to say and it never did. The failure on the director’s part to seemingly make it like every other shallow, shitty, slasher flick, as if the movie itself was trying to fit in, is also lost on the audience, because of how Hollywood operates. Hollywood doesn’t like to mock itself often and few films, short of Scream, could has pulled off a feat so well. It fails overall and if you have to explain the joke, it isn’t funny. Oh sure, it has some very iconic scenes for any horror movie, from chasing the hooker down with a chain saw, to the ATM saying to “feed it a stray cat” and the Huey Lewis and the news ax scene, to name a few. Yet everything that was enjoyable about the book, is lost in translation in the film. Bateman is too one dimensional in the flick. I know that’s the point, superficial, charming, typical serial killer, yet so mundane and typical. How Bale played Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins is exactly how I expected Bateman to be played, which makes more sense, since Batemen was a metaphor for how Bret Easton Ellis felt during this time, the conformity and loathing within oneself lost here and would of added some depth. Another problem is that, they, the director, chose for us that Bateman is indeed, a serial killer and was supposed to have actually committed murder. In my mind, that was piss poorly done, since I left the movie, twice, thinking he was just making the shit up and still unreliable. The movie is way too long, with no clear intention of story and worst yet, it is unfunny as fuck. For a black comedy, I would have recommended adding some humor into it, besides “Feed me stray cat”.

     The movie is, has and never will be for me, but perhaps I will watch it again in another 20 years and see what I think then, but my teenage self and thirty something self absolutely agree, that this shit sucks!

1 star out of 5

Books, kageoween, Reviews

Kageoween: American Psycho Book Review

Leave a comment

INTRODUCTION
     American Psycho is perhaps more known for being controversial as opposed to being classic. When it was first released back in 1991, it stirred quite the riot over it. Some places banned it, others wanted it to be censored, those mentioned within its pages wanted to be dissociated with it. A decade after its release, it was turned into a movie and has pretty much been forgotten about since, after than a few articles on its 25th anniversary.

STORY
     The story takes place sometime in the 1980’s, although when, I’m not sure. So many clues allude to 1988 or 1989, but his reference to new things, skew the timeframe, especially because our narrator is obsessed with going with the crowd, material possession and what is the “in” thing is. He’s successful, or so he claims and he moonlights as a psychotic killer. Very interesting narrator indeed. If I were to sum this up, it would be Seinfeld meets Psycho in reverse. You see, our narrator is unreliable, much like Humbert in Lolita. You get 100 or so pages in and he describes killing a homeless man, which is so over the top, you wouldn’t even need to read a rudimentary criminality book to know he is full of shit and his bullshitting doesn’t let up from there, until the end, of a lying, banal, but witty, narcissistic, vain and dull shell of a person. Bateman is just going through the motions and you can get an understanding of why and I can completely why the author has expressed it as how he felt during the decade. There is nothing of substance in this book, not even the prose, but it still does so much with so little.

THEMES
     By now, most people know it is a satire, a critique on the 1980’s and its culture of material wealth, meaningless existence and just dialing it in.

     If you’re aware enough, you’ll pick up on all the clues around you, that people are self-absorbed, narcissistic, blow-hards with little to no substance. If anything, now with the addition to Millennials, into the world and this is more poignant that ever and could still describe our world today, even if it is a bit dated.

     The worst part of this book, is that Patrick is actually a “normal” human, who isn’t actually insane, albeit, slightly OCD, which causes his weird thoughts and obsessions. Add in the fact he is an MBTI Guardian type and that fills in quite a bit of his personality code as to why he is the way he is. One could argue that the stress Batemen is going through is causing his auxiliary to kick in, giving him the odd and inferior intuitive aspects he exhibits.

     If this character was written today, there is no doubt that he would be an Incel type, bitching online and expressing himself as vulgarly as he can and probably be leading a cult, resulting in his untimely death.

CONCLUSION
     This book is still relevant, the movie does a piss poor job at recreating what is so good about this book. The beats are all still funny, the prose is a character in and of itself and if you get it, you’ll love this book as I have.

5 stars out of 5

Movies, Reviews

Kageoween: Devil in the Dark Movie Review

Leave a comment

INTRODUCTION
     The poster looks like a cross between Donnie Darko and The Knights of Ni from Monty Python, but this is a serious movie. It’s a character piece, dealing with the trials and tribulations of family and strain that the past can cause, that sees two brothers, reunited after 15 years, on a camping trip, that results in supernatural horror.

CHARACTERS
     I like this trend that I seeing when picking movies for reviews. A lot of them are old school in storytelling, with putting suspense and storytelling at the top of the list. This movie really works to establish a bond between the two main characters and showcase a rift between brothers that could start to mend during a hunting trip.

     From the first frame, we’re thrust into two brothers so fraught with tension, you could cut it like a knife before you’re even 15 minutes into the flick. One brother is more than hinted at as being a leftist, with his conspicuous Che Guevara shirt as he shoots pool with his friends at a bar, the flashback to childhood and his anti-hunting stance, his inability to let his childhood die and a line about his deceased father thinking he was a homosexual. The other brother is straight, family man, with hunting in his blood. They shy away from making him a full on conservative, though. The typical brotherly divide will make up a majority of the movie and it is believable that these two are brothers.

ACTING
     The acting is kind of weak in the beginning, with the flashbacks being the best, but by the time we get into the middle of the film, it seems as if both actors have found their bearing and are more than comfortable with their characters. The rest of the cast a decent in their roles with little to complain about, for the short amount of time they’re on screen.

STORY
     There is only so much you can do with a story about two brothers going into the woods on a hunting trip, even with supernatural elements, but this did very, very well in regards to character building. Sadly, it kind of fails in the suspense category. While they built up characters well, they missed a lot of opportunity to really amp up the tension and give the characters a battle. It never seemed like their lives were in jeopardy for us to ultimately care about the climax. At one point, the younger brother falls and breaks his arm, but this would have serviced the movie better, earlier on. The older brother moves from barley skeptical, to scared with little to be scared off, minus a cave filled with deer antlers. The movie reminds me of a standalone X-Files episode, where the editor forgot to add in footage of Mulder and Scully to round it out. I’m not sure what the creature is, but clearly it is after the youngest one, for unknown reasons. Also, there is this weird false finish a few times, which seems more like no one was paying attention to continuity as opposed to a part of the story, especially with the younger brothers arm, now fine.

     The climax was a cliché and a bit of a letdown, as they both get away too easy, but at the same time, it leads to a weird twist, that is just kind of there, before ending abruptly, leaving more questions than answers.


VISUALS
     This movie looks great, it is lit well. This isn’t filled with anything fancy, short of a few crane shot, giving us a wide eye view of the beautiful, but eerie forest. Not too much to write about, it.


CONCLUSION
     This movie despite its flaws, has charm and merit to the story. It could of use a bit more friction from the antagonist of demon, ghost, thing a bob, whatever the hell it was, to build up the suspense and give our desire to care about these characters getting to safety. Ultimately, this movie does the opposite of what most movies do and develops the characters too much and leaves the tension building on the cutting room floor. I think making this a horror movie was a mistake, as it might have worked as anything but. Overall though, another nice throwback to older films, when the audience who enjoyed them didn’t have ADHD and could pay attention to story.
This gets a 3 out of 5.

Movies, Reviews

Kageoween: Hell House LLC, Movie Review

Leave a comment

INTRODUCTION

     I cannot stand found footage films. I loathe this genre with every fiber of my being. One might think that being 13 when the film that started it all, The Blair Witch Project, came out, would of impacted me. It would be like being around when the original Halloween came out and propelled one of my favorite genres in Horror, the slasher, into the stratosphere. It wasn’t the same for me. In fact, the only influence The Blair Witch Project had on me was making me realize that any idiot could do a film and that made me want to make a movie more. Otherwise, I thought the flick sucked. I have seen the majority of movies in this genre up until Paranormal Activity 3 and that was when I stopped bothering. Those films were way too polished and obvious in set up.

     This film, on the other hand, I found to be pretty decent and not just for a found footage film, but I mean for horror in general. This is one of the more unique films out there at the moment.

CHARACTERS
     So we have our typical group of decent looking, young twenty something’s who run a business. You have the leader, his girlfriend and couple of his friends. Instead of partying though, these kids are Hallopenuers! They’re looking to set up another haunted house and make money, like any typical young capitalist. I would mention their names, but they’re slightly forgettable. That is actually a slight problem with this film. The characters are slightly shallow. Thankfully, they’re real characters and not your run of the mill, drink, fuck and bone types, albeit, some beer is imbibed.
None of the characters are really developed either, this is a typical horror aspect at work and a really sad aspect of the film because it would of made the movie feel like a lot more was at stake and we would care, but atlas, that t’was not to be.

     The leader is an awkward character, it’s hard to believe he cares too much about his girlfriend or if he does care, it’s poorly expressed. One dude has a slight thing for the leader’s girlfriend, this is about as much depth as a character gets and is very weird to give a B character the character flaw. Normally flaws are reserved for the hero, not the first victim on the chop block. At one point, we’re told through exposition, about the deep boyhood friendship shared by two of the characters. I know showing this through hours and hours of video tape would be a pain in the ass, but it should have been better than some random being interviewed who is an expert on this case, maybe? I don’t know, it doesn’t really mention his credentials or why the hell he would be interesting to us to listen to, but by today’s “standards”, random internet trolls are all over the documentary scene, so it works. Regardless, the characters, while not as full or well-rounded as they could have been, worked out well enough for the story being told.

ACTING
     The acting was unusually better than most these films have. Although the actors seem like actors, as opposed to genuine characters. Perhaps the fault of a rookie director or maybe just the best take they could muster. Either way, I’ve seen much worse and don’t find this to be a horrible display of acting.

STORY
     The story was very interesting and well thought out. The tension building was right, it was slow and methodical, with each moment heightening the tension. It’s an old school horror movie in a modern skin and it shows, crafting a fantastic throwback to older 70’s and 80’s horror, where suspense and story was king. This does old school well and only those with a love for the genre of horror will really appreciate this detail, I think. Especially with all the Saw style editing. The only two flaws with the story is the twist, which I saw coming a mile away, but that didn’t detract from the fact it was interesting, even if done before. Also, the last year the hotel being active was late 80’s or early 90’s. It hasn’t operated in nearly 20 years, yet a modern bottle of Jack Daniel’s can be seen, among the artifacts.

VISUAL
     This movie looks like shit and that is part of its charm. It is hard to call your movie found footage when your lighting is professionally done and that has always been a gripe I had with these films. This movie feels like a compromise between being able to see the film and what is going on, but looking home movie like and keeping with a home video quality at the same time. In fact, only a few scenes looked awkward, one after a freak out moment in the field seemed out of place, like they didn’t bother to edit it in post, but besides that, it was very well shot and very well lit, creating a great balance between practical lighting and storytelling.

OVERALL

     The film, despite its flaws, is very enjoyable. One could point to any number of flaws in the classics and those are still held in high regard, which is why I am focusing on what it did right, as opposed to some of the weaker aspects. This film nailed storytelling. It knew suspense as well as atmosphere, it built well, even if the climax didn’t shock me. Overall, this movie is a welcome addition to the horror genre, regardless. It’s been a while since I’ve seen a film not rely on jump scares, music in place of suspense and a lack of gore, in order to tell a story. This is where it stands out and what it ultimately did best.

     I give the movie 3 ½ stars out of 5.

——————————————
Minor edits to the text: 10/2/18 11:35 pm

Books, Reviews

Kageoween: Frankenstein Book Review

Leave a comment

INTRODUCTION

     Frankenstein, for all the pop culture surrounding it, isn’t a horror novel. Not in the traditional sense anyways. I see that as a shallow view of the book and a literal interpretation. Much has been said over the years about it dealing with fear of technology, science and modern advancement and given the history of the era, one cannot be faulted for thinking such, especially because Christianity still had a massive foothold. What about the book in 2018 though? If anything, Frankenstein is about the horror of humanity and its decrepit ugliness towards anything that is left of center or queer and the plight of humanity vs growth.

     The book follows multiple narratives and interweaves an intriguing story that really only drags in the middle. The rest of the book advances at a great pace and tells the story with prose that is stylistic, as opposed to seeming outdated. It’s quite easy to understand, although the narrative switch for me, wasn’t exactly clear at one point. Despite all that, the book and its central themes are fantastic with very little to complain about.

CHARACTERS
     The book has three main point of views, Victor Frankenstein as told through a primary narrator named Robert Wolton, the monster itself and various others through letters. Legend has it that the book was created as the result of a party were all guest agreed to write a horror story and this is the result of such. Marry Shelly was alleged to have struggled with coming up with an idea, which the multiple point of views tend to allude to.

     Victor Frankenstein has the most development of all the characters with the monster coming in second place. Everyone else, even when they seem important to the plot, are kind of just there. Not like background characters, but given the fact they have names and we’re exposed to some of their history through exposition, one would think they would have been important enough to warrant more development then they had.

STYLE AND PLOT
     Having been written 200 years ago, the prose hold up, very well. It’s similar to the modern novel in a lot of ways by exhibiting concise, basic prose, but still with evocative imagery, so that allows anyone to follow along with the story. Very accessible to the average reader with enough depth to satisfy anyone who demands more from their lit.

     The overall plot, if you can call it that, is as follows: Dr.Frankenstein created a being from unknown science, his monster took on a mind of his own. The monster taught himself to read, speak and learn. Unable to live in society, he is basically exiled and doomed to a life of loneliness, when returns to ask the good doctor to make another in his image and is refused, turning the monster to enact revenge upon him, which results in the death of both.

THEMES
     Besides writing, the themes is where the story is truly at. One could cull so many different interpretations from this work. It could be seen as the story of Lucifer, cast from heaven, making the renegade angel of enlightenment a lot more sympathetic. Given the time frame though, I doubt Mary Shelly or anyone would of consider admitting to such. One can view this as being a woman in the time frame, constantly turned away from manly endeavors that they’re just not built for, which is why this book was originally published anonymously, I’m sure and only bore her name years later.

     Other interpretations could be relating to being a monster or outcast as a teenager or in our modern area, being an Incel, since the monster is very much Incel like in demeanor with similar demands for a wife.

     Still, none of these seem like very good interpretations, but a few are dated. My own personal interpretation is the monster is representative of intellectualism, which is why the monster’s story is similar to Lucifer in the bible. There is innumerable evidence to back this up, including, but not limited to: The monster rebelling against his creator, the love for learning, being cast out and most importantly being misunderstood by the more emotional humans that plague the lands of this tale. Frankenstein is doing his best to live in a world that values emotion over logic and intelligence and is doing a poor job at such. No matter what, he is constantly exiled and seen as a monstrosity.

     When a young woman is executed for murder of a young child, the monster is undoubtedly to blame. This is fantastic use of metaphor, since the monster is intellect and the child is innocents and people fear that knowledge would lead to a loss of that innocence. So not only are the townspeople enraged, but they are also hasty to point the finger and hang an innocent woman.

     Almost every negative thing in this book is a direct cause of others letting their emotion rule them as opposed to being in control of themselves. They project their worst habits on the monster, enough though the monster is never really described. It leaves one to see the monster as the hero instead of everyone around him, who are all too willing kill, point the finger, flip out or destroy someone without due cause. It is the intriguing concept of humanity in all forms that really drives the narrative and makes it an enjoyable read.

CONCLUSION
     Frankenstein isn’t horror and the idea it is, 200 years on, is ashame. It’s called the original science fiction novel and while it has those tropes, I wouldn’t call it that either, since Sci-fi is often denoted by its obsession with technology. In a lot of ways, it is a gothic weird tale, but even that doesn’t really do the story justice in terms of describing it. The only way to really describe it, would be to call it what it is, that is character driven lit and our attitudes, prejudices and intolerance to difference in this world, no matter the era that keep this book being reprinted over and over again, to be enjoy and inspire future generations.
Five out of Five Stars