THE MIDNIGHT MEAT TRAIN.First of all--- no horror movie should ever be given such a funny sounding title, even if that's the title of the source material. Maybe it's just me, but to me that title simply takes all the horror away.
Earlier this year, horror fans made a huge fuss on why this film's theatrical release kept on getting postponed... they made an even bigger uproar when Lionsgate Films decided to release this movie in just a handful of theaters in the US (100 theaters to be exact... with no promotion whatsoever) , effectively making it a semi-direct to video release. Since I was in the mood for something horrifying, I figured I might as well watch this movie and see what all the fuss was about.
This movie is based on a short story of the same title by Clive Barker, taken from his Books of Blood collection. The story is relatively simple--- the main character is Leon, a struggling photographer who never seems to get that big break. Upon the advice of a dealer, he took it upon himself to catch the spirit of the city in his photographs. One night, he photographs a woman on a subway station, and this woman turns up missing the next morning. Upon returning to the scene, he discovers that a butcher... uh--- butchers his hapless victims on the late train.
Maybe it's because I'm so used to horror movies that no horror movie could scare me anymore, or maybe it's because I've seen so much blood and gore in real life that I have become so desensitized... but I just didn't find this movie horrifying. For one thing, the special effects take away from all the horror that they were supposed to convey... I mean, how can anyone be horrified when blood has that orange tinge, when eyeballs look like plastic, when the subway itself looks like something from a videogame cut scene--- I found it hard to be affected by all that gore when it all looked so fake. If those scenes were only done in a more realistic manner, I imagine some people might close their eyes or look away... but with the way those scenes were executed, I couldn't help but find them comedic. There are some moments that were genuinely tense, but save for the bizarre final act (that's actually typical if you're accustomed to the world of Clive Barker) the entire movie succumbs to the usual trappings of slasher/ horror movies. We've seen all those scare tactics before, and they were done more effectively. Overall, the movie is quite effective for a few scares, and i wouldn't call it bad... I just wouldn't call it a classic either. I guess Lionsgate Films decided to dump this movie on the direct to video bin because it does seem like a direct to video B movie at times. It's quite a shame though, because this movie is a lot better than most horror movies that get a theatrical release these days.
Earlier this year, horror fans made a huge fuss on why this film's theatrical release kept on getting postponed... they made an even bigger uproar when Lionsgate Films decided to release this movie in just a handful of theaters in the US (100 theaters to be exact... with no promotion whatsoever) , effectively making it a semi-direct to video release. Since I was in the mood for something horrifying, I figured I might as well watch this movie and see what all the fuss was about.
This movie is based on a short story of the same title by Clive Barker, taken from his Books of Blood collection. The story is relatively simple--- the main character is Leon, a struggling photographer who never seems to get that big break. Upon the advice of a dealer, he took it upon himself to catch the spirit of the city in his photographs. One night, he photographs a woman on a subway station, and this woman turns up missing the next morning. Upon returning to the scene, he discovers that a butcher... uh--- butchers his hapless victims on the late train.
Maybe it's because I'm so used to horror movies that no horror movie could scare me anymore, or maybe it's because I've seen so much blood and gore in real life that I have become so desensitized... but I just didn't find this movie horrifying. For one thing, the special effects take away from all the horror that they were supposed to convey... I mean, how can anyone be horrified when blood has that orange tinge, when eyeballs look like plastic, when the subway itself looks like something from a videogame cut scene--- I found it hard to be affected by all that gore when it all looked so fake. If those scenes were only done in a more realistic manner, I imagine some people might close their eyes or look away... but with the way those scenes were executed, I couldn't help but find them comedic. There are some moments that were genuinely tense, but save for the bizarre final act (that's actually typical if you're accustomed to the world of Clive Barker) the entire movie succumbs to the usual trappings of slasher/ horror movies. We've seen all those scare tactics before, and they were done more effectively. Overall, the movie is quite effective for a few scares, and i wouldn't call it bad... I just wouldn't call it a classic either. I guess Lionsgate Films decided to dump this movie on the direct to video bin because it does seem like a direct to video B movie at times. It's quite a shame though, because this movie is a lot better than most horror movies that get a theatrical release these days.
No comments:
Post a Comment