Post by Quorthon on Oct 22, 2007 9:54:00 GMT -5
Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon
Horror/Slasher
2006
Color
MPAA Rating: R
Directed by: Scott Glosserman
USA
The slasher film is often seen as something like the cheap bastard of horror films. Some guy wanders around tormenting and violently killing a bunch of sexy “teens” or coeds or something along those lines. It’s a simple formula. Hell, it’s so simple, that in a lot of cases, one doesn’t even need to bother with hiding the identity of the killer! He’s a boring escaped mental patient (Slumber Party Massacre)! Then the point is just to watch sexy chicks get killed in their nighties. In fact, the plot of the killer being well known in the films and the survivors being the mystery happens about as often as trying to guess the identity of the killer, or waiting to see the killer’s grotesque secret. It’s an open-ended genre, kind of like zombie films that falls into the same exact problem—too many of the films in said genre are unoriginal, uncreative, and painfully formulaic. After “Friday the 13th Part 3,” most of the originality was sucked right out of the series. The same was true of “Nightmare on Elm Street” as well, but with a minor bonus of a continuing storyline—something a lot of slasher franchises totally lack. Jason usually comes back to kill totally different people. The same is generally true of Leatherface and the Driller Killer (not to be confused with the “Driller Killer” movie) from “Slumber Party Massacre.”
So how is the slasher film open-ended? For one, it’s a genre that should really have no formula. The main point is that somebody kills a bunch of people in wild ways in a single night. Aside from that, creative filmmakers can do whatever they hell they want to meet that end. Well, after a while, most film genres fall into a formulaic nightmare, and slashers seem to have gone that route in the worst way. “Scream” offered a welcome refreshing style at one time. And since “Scream” hit, the slasher film has become mainstream, and following that, it’s also been cheapened. Light gore, lame stories, boring killers, and then there were the PG-13 films which brought us something like a “Slasher Lite” genre. “House of Wax” was turned into a very standard horror/slasher and the Mock-Slasher films have become all-too-numerous. Most notably, the “Scream” and “Scary Movie” franchises and their various imitations. But there was a time when “Scream” was refreshing—they revitalized an ailing genre and made a decent thrilling movie that also had a sense of humor. But then they didn’t stop and things just got worse and pretty soon the Mock- or Faux-Slasher was just as much of a beaten dead horse as the old slasher genre itself.
Now, we have “Behind the Mask.”
“Behind the Mask” is a slasher film unlike other slasher films. Like “Scream,” it’s a take on the deconstruction of the slasher formula. It points out plot and setting and reason, but from an entirely unique perspective. How? Because it’s also a mockumentary. Here, we follow a film crew as they get to know Leslie Vernon as he prepares for his own night of slasher fun. You see, Leslie Vernon is a killer like Jason or Michael Myers or whatever. He’s very purpose in life is to slay people—sexy teens mostly—for the purpose of providing necessary fear to the denizens of the world. It’s really about that simple. He exists to kill sexy teens. We go through a unique perspective as we see how he sets up the way he scares and kills people as the female reporter and her two cameramen tag along. Like the good little documentary crew they are. They follow and “document” Leslie Vernon as he makes jokes, sets up an evening of terror, and visits a retired slasher friend of his. They even follow him to his murderous night. That’s essentially what you’ve got here.
Here’s the breakdown:
The Good:
--The acting is actually some of the best you’re likely to see in any slasher film. It’s excellent.
--The killer, Leslie Vernon, is one of the most enjoyable personalities to ever appear in a slasher film. He’s every bit as fun as Freddy or Chucky at their best. Better at times, because unlike those other two, Leslie Vernon is more “normal” and much easier to relate to.
--Excellent mood, set-up, and jokes. The main character of Leslie Vernon is acted extremely well, with a nice range to his personality, and is
--The feel of a documentary film is present and done pretty well. Think, “This is Spinal Tap” for slasher fans.
--The movie is about half mockumentary and half almost standard slasher fare—and, surprisingly, it works.
--Some nice twists and depth thrown in for good measure.
--We get a faux-documentary on a slasher-killer that ever-so-subtly deconstructs the very premise and formula behind average slasher films. It breaks the fourth wall in a much more unique way than “Scream.”
--A very refreshing film in a very stagnant genre. It doesn’t just look at the formulaic nature of slashers, it dives into those rules and tricks. Yes, they still stick with the “sexy virgin chick is the victor” idea, but it turns it on its head and is much cleverer than your average slasher film.
--More refreshing and fun than the original “Scream.” More inventive than just about all modern slasher films—especially those culled straight from Hollywood. A fun, modern look into slasher films.
Didn’t Hurt It, Didn’t Help:
--The atmosphere for the killing sequences is pretty average.
--The blood-n-gore level isn’t exactly very high, but when we do get some, it is fairly amusing.
--The idea of a slasher film that operates as a deconstruction of the slasher genre has, unfortunately, been done before. But really, it’s never been done quite this well.
--A bit too much lighting during otherwise scary night scenes.
--Some (a little bit) of the horror feel is lost due to the light-hearted nature of the film. Granted, most good slasher films have a light-hearted piece to them to make the horror all the more evil. However, the light-heartedness is often broken up by the general unease of the reporter and moments of anger by the main character.
--Somewhat standard blood-n-gore and other special effects.
--Minor nudity and sexuality. Unlike many slasher films, however, it doesn’t rely on cheap gimmicky gore and gratuitous (or unfortunately implied) nudity and sex to hide a cast of one-dimensional characters. Unlike most slasher films, this one has a wealth of actual acting and personality to carry it along.
--Good, if somewhat average music. Some other parts of the film seem to be average to a point—as if to imply the stagnation of the slasher genre, because the point of the film is to follow the “rules” of the slasher, but in a different manner. The gore is average, and the atmosphere is average as well. None of it is bad in any way, but neither does it try to excel. This would’ve been a perfect “10” film had they just gone the extra mile on some of these things.
The Bad:
--Early on, the film references Freddy Krueger, Michael Myers, and Jason Voorhees as if they’re real people and not film icons. This puts an odd skewed perspective on the film and the references feel a bit cheesy. When they’re mentioned, it pulls us out of the illusion of the film and for a lot of people, may damage the atmosphere a bit.
--Even with the twists in the story, the film is not without its predictability—but that doesn’t divert from the overall fun. The predictability may not be as noticeable to average movie goers, but as a fan of this kind of stuff, I saw through it.
--Some more hardcore slasher fans will no doubt be disappointed by the lack of overt gore.
The Ugly:
--Leslie Vernon’s mask is about as cool as it is ridiculous. It’s got to be hard to come up with really good new ideas in this category, but at the same time, the movie (and the main character) doesn’t take itself too seriously, so it works out pretty well.
Memorable Scene:
--Actually, there are quite a few. Many involve Leslie Vernon making jokes and fake scares—whenever he’s toying with the film crew.
--The film’s climax is very good.
Fun Stuff:
--Zelda Rubinstein and Robert Englund have bit roles.
Acting: 9/10
Story: 8/10
Atmosphere: 7/10
Cinematography: 8/10
Character Development: 8/10
Special Effects/Make-up: 7/10
Dialog: 9/10
Music: 7/10
Direction: 8/10
Nudity: 1/10
Sexuality: 1/10
Violence: 5/10
Gore: 4/10
Cheesiness: 3/10
Crappiness: 0/10
Overall: 8/10
Yet another example of a film showing that mainstream Hollywood “just doesn’t get” horror. This serves up a fun slasher/horror premise from a truly unique perspective (for this genre at any rate) that should meld well with most all real horror fans. I know a good chunk of my review makes it feel like an average slasher, but trust me—there is so much fun and personality here that it’s easily a step above. Highly recommended.
Horror/Slasher
2006
Color
MPAA Rating: R
Directed by: Scott Glosserman
USA
The slasher film is often seen as something like the cheap bastard of horror films. Some guy wanders around tormenting and violently killing a bunch of sexy “teens” or coeds or something along those lines. It’s a simple formula. Hell, it’s so simple, that in a lot of cases, one doesn’t even need to bother with hiding the identity of the killer! He’s a boring escaped mental patient (Slumber Party Massacre)! Then the point is just to watch sexy chicks get killed in their nighties. In fact, the plot of the killer being well known in the films and the survivors being the mystery happens about as often as trying to guess the identity of the killer, or waiting to see the killer’s grotesque secret. It’s an open-ended genre, kind of like zombie films that falls into the same exact problem—too many of the films in said genre are unoriginal, uncreative, and painfully formulaic. After “Friday the 13th Part 3,” most of the originality was sucked right out of the series. The same was true of “Nightmare on Elm Street” as well, but with a minor bonus of a continuing storyline—something a lot of slasher franchises totally lack. Jason usually comes back to kill totally different people. The same is generally true of Leatherface and the Driller Killer (not to be confused with the “Driller Killer” movie) from “Slumber Party Massacre.”
So how is the slasher film open-ended? For one, it’s a genre that should really have no formula. The main point is that somebody kills a bunch of people in wild ways in a single night. Aside from that, creative filmmakers can do whatever they hell they want to meet that end. Well, after a while, most film genres fall into a formulaic nightmare, and slashers seem to have gone that route in the worst way. “Scream” offered a welcome refreshing style at one time. And since “Scream” hit, the slasher film has become mainstream, and following that, it’s also been cheapened. Light gore, lame stories, boring killers, and then there were the PG-13 films which brought us something like a “Slasher Lite” genre. “House of Wax” was turned into a very standard horror/slasher and the Mock-Slasher films have become all-too-numerous. Most notably, the “Scream” and “Scary Movie” franchises and their various imitations. But there was a time when “Scream” was refreshing—they revitalized an ailing genre and made a decent thrilling movie that also had a sense of humor. But then they didn’t stop and things just got worse and pretty soon the Mock- or Faux-Slasher was just as much of a beaten dead horse as the old slasher genre itself.
Now, we have “Behind the Mask.”
“Behind the Mask” is a slasher film unlike other slasher films. Like “Scream,” it’s a take on the deconstruction of the slasher formula. It points out plot and setting and reason, but from an entirely unique perspective. How? Because it’s also a mockumentary. Here, we follow a film crew as they get to know Leslie Vernon as he prepares for his own night of slasher fun. You see, Leslie Vernon is a killer like Jason or Michael Myers or whatever. He’s very purpose in life is to slay people—sexy teens mostly—for the purpose of providing necessary fear to the denizens of the world. It’s really about that simple. He exists to kill sexy teens. We go through a unique perspective as we see how he sets up the way he scares and kills people as the female reporter and her two cameramen tag along. Like the good little documentary crew they are. They follow and “document” Leslie Vernon as he makes jokes, sets up an evening of terror, and visits a retired slasher friend of his. They even follow him to his murderous night. That’s essentially what you’ve got here.
Here’s the breakdown:
The Good:
--The acting is actually some of the best you’re likely to see in any slasher film. It’s excellent.
--The killer, Leslie Vernon, is one of the most enjoyable personalities to ever appear in a slasher film. He’s every bit as fun as Freddy or Chucky at their best. Better at times, because unlike those other two, Leslie Vernon is more “normal” and much easier to relate to.
--Excellent mood, set-up, and jokes. The main character of Leslie Vernon is acted extremely well, with a nice range to his personality, and is
--The feel of a documentary film is present and done pretty well. Think, “This is Spinal Tap” for slasher fans.
--The movie is about half mockumentary and half almost standard slasher fare—and, surprisingly, it works.
--Some nice twists and depth thrown in for good measure.
--We get a faux-documentary on a slasher-killer that ever-so-subtly deconstructs the very premise and formula behind average slasher films. It breaks the fourth wall in a much more unique way than “Scream.”
--A very refreshing film in a very stagnant genre. It doesn’t just look at the formulaic nature of slashers, it dives into those rules and tricks. Yes, they still stick with the “sexy virgin chick is the victor” idea, but it turns it on its head and is much cleverer than your average slasher film.
--More refreshing and fun than the original “Scream.” More inventive than just about all modern slasher films—especially those culled straight from Hollywood. A fun, modern look into slasher films.
Didn’t Hurt It, Didn’t Help:
--The atmosphere for the killing sequences is pretty average.
--The blood-n-gore level isn’t exactly very high, but when we do get some, it is fairly amusing.
--The idea of a slasher film that operates as a deconstruction of the slasher genre has, unfortunately, been done before. But really, it’s never been done quite this well.
--A bit too much lighting during otherwise scary night scenes.
--Some (a little bit) of the horror feel is lost due to the light-hearted nature of the film. Granted, most good slasher films have a light-hearted piece to them to make the horror all the more evil. However, the light-heartedness is often broken up by the general unease of the reporter and moments of anger by the main character.
--Somewhat standard blood-n-gore and other special effects.
--Minor nudity and sexuality. Unlike many slasher films, however, it doesn’t rely on cheap gimmicky gore and gratuitous (or unfortunately implied) nudity and sex to hide a cast of one-dimensional characters. Unlike most slasher films, this one has a wealth of actual acting and personality to carry it along.
--Good, if somewhat average music. Some other parts of the film seem to be average to a point—as if to imply the stagnation of the slasher genre, because the point of the film is to follow the “rules” of the slasher, but in a different manner. The gore is average, and the atmosphere is average as well. None of it is bad in any way, but neither does it try to excel. This would’ve been a perfect “10” film had they just gone the extra mile on some of these things.
The Bad:
--Early on, the film references Freddy Krueger, Michael Myers, and Jason Voorhees as if they’re real people and not film icons. This puts an odd skewed perspective on the film and the references feel a bit cheesy. When they’re mentioned, it pulls us out of the illusion of the film and for a lot of people, may damage the atmosphere a bit.
--Even with the twists in the story, the film is not without its predictability—but that doesn’t divert from the overall fun. The predictability may not be as noticeable to average movie goers, but as a fan of this kind of stuff, I saw through it.
--Some more hardcore slasher fans will no doubt be disappointed by the lack of overt gore.
The Ugly:
--Leslie Vernon’s mask is about as cool as it is ridiculous. It’s got to be hard to come up with really good new ideas in this category, but at the same time, the movie (and the main character) doesn’t take itself too seriously, so it works out pretty well.
Memorable Scene:
--Actually, there are quite a few. Many involve Leslie Vernon making jokes and fake scares—whenever he’s toying with the film crew.
--The film’s climax is very good.
Fun Stuff:
--Zelda Rubinstein and Robert Englund have bit roles.
Acting: 9/10
Story: 8/10
Atmosphere: 7/10
Cinematography: 8/10
Character Development: 8/10
Special Effects/Make-up: 7/10
Dialog: 9/10
Music: 7/10
Direction: 8/10
Nudity: 1/10
Sexuality: 1/10
Violence: 5/10
Gore: 4/10
Cheesiness: 3/10
Crappiness: 0/10
Overall: 8/10
Yet another example of a film showing that mainstream Hollywood “just doesn’t get” horror. This serves up a fun slasher/horror premise from a truly unique perspective (for this genre at any rate) that should meld well with most all real horror fans. I know a good chunk of my review makes it feel like an average slasher, but trust me—there is so much fun and personality here that it’s easily a step above. Highly recommended.
