ABRAHAM LINCOLN VS. ZOMBIES: AN INTERVIEW WITH CHRISTOPHER MARRONE

Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies (review here) is just one of the latest films released by the infamously prolific Asylum Films. While the film isn't perfect, it is among the mini studio's best releases in their ten year history. 

The film, whose release preempts that of the bigger-budgeted Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter by almost a month, is a heavily inspired tale of our sixteenth president forced to fight legions of the undead. In this case, the film replaces one mythical creature with another – from vampires to zombies – who Lincoln decapitates with great vengeance and furious anger. It stars fan favorite Bill Oberst, Jr. in the title role, as well as a supporting cast of relative unknowns. Among the cast is Christopher Marrone, who sports a caterpillar mustache and Civil War-era garb to play Pat Garrett, historically famous for the assassination of outlaw William H. Bonney, better known as Billy the Kid. Chris was nice enough to share his experiences on the film, as well as his career, his views on the current state of horror, and what he has lined up in the future.

---

Was there a turning point in your life where you knew you wanted to be an actor? Was it a particular film or filmmaker? Or did you simply always have that desire?

I don’t know if there was a particular turning point exactly, because I was raised by two former actors. My father and mother met in New York while doing an off-Broadway play. I grew up with stories from both of them and knew at a young age that I wanted to be involved with the film business.

Were your parents involved in anything that might sound familiar to our readers? Did they take part in features or television, or did they strictly perform on the stage?

My mother was mainly a theater actor, her true love was the stage. I know she auditioned for film and TV, but with her voice and ability, she was meant for [the stage]. My father was also a theater actor, but he began to make his way into film and television. He was a big guy and worked as a security specialist for film executives and the talent, so it put him right in front of the people you'd want to meet. Being a talented actor and making healthy friendships with these people led to him working pretty consistently within TV/film. Some notable projects are Woody Allen's segment for New York Stories, "Miami Vice," and Men of Respect (starring John Turturro).

Because both of your parents are actors, how often does it turn into acting school at home? Do you all compare notes and swap advice? Have you ever dared critique a performance by either of them?

My parents were great about my upbringing when it came to the entertainment business, so it didn't turn into an acting school so much, but whenever we watched films and TV shows, they shared their input and commentary on the stronger talent in the project. I don't know if they knew at the time, but I believe subconsciously I was taking notes on who they talked about, and why they came across better on screen. I don't think that thought has ever crossed my mind until you brought it up.

Growing up, I was still able to see them perform on stage for some of my youth, and from what I remember they did a damn good job.

What was your first professional acting experience?

What I consider to be my FIRST professional experience was working on “Field of Vision” for NBC. I played a high school football player, which was amusing to me, because I had just gotten done playing college football… [and now I was] portraying a high school football player on screen.

You have spent time on both television and feature film productions. What would you say is the difference between the two, if any?

I feel like the difference is more with time. With television, usually one episode is 7-10 days of shooting, so there is this sense of pressure when the week is coming to an end. They obviously map it out in scheduling to work, but it still doesn't stop that feeling [of pressure]. With film, it’s not as “turn and burn,” so to speak, but more of a longer effort…but there's still a sense of urgency, as you only have the window of time to get what you can get during principal photography. I’m a fan of both styles of production, so if it’s strictly film for myself here on out I am fine with that, and if I land a re-occurring role on a TV show, I will be just as happy.

How did you come to be involved with The Asylum’s Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies?

Darla Clarkson. That is how. Darla is a local casting director here in Atlanta. I had originally submitted for a film she was involved with about a month before Lincoln vs. Zombies came along. Darla and I met, which went really well, and she told me she would keep me at top of her list of actors. She was offered casting director by The Asylum for Lincoln vs. Zombies and then my phone rang. I wouldn’t have had the opportunity if it were not for her. Granted, I still had to audition, but for a casting director to be a fan of yours, it truly goes a long way in this business.

Over the years, The Asylum has developed a divisive, love-them-or-hate-them reputation across the Internet, inspired by their history of releasing what’s become known as “mockbusters.” Were you aware of this reputation before becoming involved with the film? If so, did that make you hesitant at all to join the production?

Prior to doing Lincoln vs. Zombies, I wasn’t fully aware of who The Asylum was...until I looked into the films they had done in the past; then I knew. I was not as much hesitant, but there was more of a “let me stop and think” mentality, as one should have with any project. I called up my family, I called up my mentor (Patrick 'P-nut' Monroe), and I called my agency. I wanted to take the role immediately, but knew I needed to think it out no matter what. Needless to say, I was happy with the decision I made, and am happy with how the film turned out.

How much research did you perform for your role as Pat Garrett, known as assassinating the infamous outlaw Billy the Kid? Did you learn anything about him that surprised you?

I did look into Pat Garrett the moment I found out I got the role. I had about a week prior to filming to research him. Much of the Pat Garrett we know is as a bad-ass lawman, and for his killing of Billy the Kid. That really allowed me to portray him in my own way – because I was a younger Pat Garrett – and not exactly emulate him based on history, or other actors who have played him, so I really enjoyed that. I did find pictures of a young Pat Garrett and I seriously believe that man had that mustache even when he left the womb.

What was it like to work with Bill Oberst Jr., who plays Lincoln in the film?

Bill Oberst, Jr. is an amazing actor, person, and a friend. The first day of filming with Bill was the scene with Garret and Lincoln’s “walk & talk.” We rehearsed the scene outside the room we were to film in, and the moment we got done rehearsing, the first thing out of his mouth was a compliment of my acting abilities. I was really humbled by that moment and he went over a few tips that have helped his performances come across a lot stronger, which I immediately made note of. I enjoyed every day on set with Bill and really hope to work with him again in the future.

In a recent interview with Oberst, Jr., he explained his approach to the role, in that Lincoln, when performed correctly, is and always will be Lincoln. Whether Lincoln’s on the moon, or wherever else, an actor must approach him as if he is the real Lincoln finding himself in an outlandish situation. He said: “I used to tour with first-person stage portrayals; Jesus Of Nazareth, Mark Twain, JFK… sometimes I’d be in a gym; sometimes on a huge stage; sometimes in a community center. But if the character is present, the historical anomalies don’t matter.” For this film, the Lincoln that history has always held was plucked down into this situation and we’re observing how Lincoln would have responded—in this case, to the walking dead. Was this mindframe something you experienced yourself when working alongside Oberst, Jr., and was this also something that made its way into your own performance?

Bill brought an element to that performance that I feel rubbed off on all of the cast that he shared screen time with. I took it upon myself after Day 1, doing our scene together, to pick his brain and see what wisdom I could gain from him. I made sure not to allow any distractions cloud my performance as much as I could. I am a huge gamer so working on Lincoln vs. Zombies was like a new land, in an RPG, and I walked away with a few points to add to my "Skill Tree of Acting Abilities."

How did you and the cast/crew approach the film, knowing it had been largely inspired by the better-known Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, which releases this month?

The cast bonded quickly and knew we wanted to achieve something different for this film. The ability to compete with a multi-million dollar film was just not possible with the budget we had, so we knew not to approach it as a competition. Instead, the approach I felt on set from the cast was a “co-existing” mentality with Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. It’s like a heavyweight and a middleweight within the world of fighting—those two should never fight each other; yet, they are both still fighters, so they treat each other with that type of co-existing respect. That is, in my opinion, how these two films should be looked at: we fight in the same ring and fight the same fight…we just don't fight each other. So, let’s not say one is better than the other, but let’s say they both put up a great fight and deserve respect.

What was your overall experience on the film?

I really enjoyed working this movie and believe that doors will open for all of us involved. I made some life-long friends off this set and met some people who were able to share wisdom that I plan to utilize as I move forward with my career.

Was there ever a moment on set where you just kind of took in all your surroundings and laughed to yourself at the kind of movie you were making? If so, what was it that you saw, or heard, or experienced that made you realize the oddball movie you were making? 

There was that moment, yes. I don't believe the scene made it into the final cut, but there was a scene being filmed where Lincoln beheads a child zombie, and at that moment I was like, "That just happened." Then a couple days after that, one of the couples playing some zombies had their one-year-old with them. They actually asked if they could make their baby a zombie and have it crawling after Lincoln. This all happened in the make-up room, which I was in, and [this idea] was being considered. In the back of my mind I formulated this zombie-baby crawling after Lincoln with a finger in its mouth. I believe the zombie baby idea was considered, but ultimately not used. I do think about how funny that would have been to see on film.

Would you consider yourself a fan of horror? If so, what are your favorites?

I am very much a fan of horror films. I always find myself watching a horror film frequently throughout the week right before I go to bed. Some of my favorites would have to be Insidious, Saw, Fire in the Sky, The Thing, Jaws, The Ring, and there are many more to go along with that list.

Are there any particular “new” horror filmmakers you’re especially enthusiastic about?

I am a fan of James Wan and the horror films he has made. I am a big fan of Insidious and Saw and what he did with those films. I think he is only getting better at his craft and would love to work with him some time.

I would agree. I think Insidious especially shows that James Wan is capable of providing genuine scares and creating genuinely creepy imagery – it’s so opposite of Saw, which was/is a very visceral and graphic experience. Another filmmaker with a similar agenda is Ti West. He’s a master at slow burn horror, a style that can sometimes turn off more the hardened, Saw-obsessed horror fan. Have you seen his previous films, The Innkeepers, or before that, House of the Devil?

I agree completely. I am all about the build up, as it really adds to the intensity one feels... not knowing when the scares are going to happen. I have not gotten a chance to see The Innkeepers yet, but I remember the trailer very clearly and that trailer freaked me out. Ti West did an amazing job scaring my ass with House of the Devil, so I am sure The Innkeepers will do the same. I know he was involved with The ABCs of Death, which is funny because I participated in a short film that was up for the competition for the letter T. Unfortunately we weren't selected, but was a fun time.

Horror comes in stages. There are always crazes that sustain the genre before the genre strangles it to death. Halloween gave us the slasher craze in the late 70s/ and most of the 80s; Scream gave us the self-aware, WB-starring, pop culture-quoting teens in the 90s; in the new millennium, Saw gave us what has been termed “torture porn,” and the remake craze seems to be finally be dying a slow death. We now seem to be in the very beginning stages of the “historical mash-up.” Do you think this is a stage that will last? If not, what do you think is next for the genre?

Hmm, that is a good question. I think the idea of an "Alternate History" is a great way for people to come up with various renditions of what could have happened. There are plenty of conspiracies out there and unexplained/undocumented time in our world's past, so the door is technically open for interpretation.

I can't put my finger on where I think the genre is moving, but I will say that films like Insidious, The Woman in Black, and I am sure The Innkeepers are showing the industry that we (the audience) can still be scared like they were during the Psycho, Jaws, and Alien days. We don't need all the gore and graphic violence. I think the real effect is when the viewer goes home from the theater and does the "not- look- into- the- room- but- move- their- hand- along- the- wall- to- find- the- light- switch" routine before entering the room. That's the real scare.

In a pre-Internet time twenty years ago, a mini studio like The Asylum would have great difficulty enjoying the kind of modest success it is currently enjoying. Do you think the Internet has changed the face of marketing low budget films? Where do you see the trend of small, grassroots marketing going into the future?

The Internet has, without a doubt, changed the face of marketing for filmmaking. The ability you have today to fund a film through sources like Kickstarter and Indiegogo, as well as promote your idea through Youtube, with the possibility of someone taking notice and wanting to put money into it…it’s phenomenal. I am a fan of the underdog, so when someone has the drive to make a film at a low budget and they are able to pull it off; well, you should, at the very least, applaud them for doing that.

How did you come to be involved in Lawless (formerly The Wettest County in the World)? Could you tell us about your role in the film?

Right before I was to work “Field of Vision,” I was speaking with my dad, getting some advice on what could I do to help myself before going into my first major role. He told me to find some work for any position, if I could, on a major motion picture that was filming in the area. When I saw that Lawless was looking for people – for crew and extras – I decided to send my stuff in to see what it would do. I got called in to work as Tom Hardy’s double, which was great because I was on set each day and able to watch the director, crew, and talent work. Also by working Lawless,  I was able to meet Patrick ‘P-Nut’ Monroe, who has become a very strong influence on my career/life and is like my other big brother.

What was your experience working with director John Hillcoat?

Working as Tom Hardy’s double put me in the same room as John Hillcoat the whole time I was on set. John Hillcoat is an amazing director and knows what he wants out of his scenes. His D.P., Benoit Delhomme, is his P.I.C (Partner In Crime) and they work very well together. Hillcoat would tell Benoit what he wanted, and Benoit would immediately come up with how to make it look beautiful on camera. It was probably one of the best parts of working on that film: watching the both of them work together.

Did you have much interaction with the primary cast?

I did, actually. There seems to be this “unwritten” rule of not talking to the cast while on set—at least that is what I was advised not to do. Now, being raised in a home like I was, there was no such thing as being “starstruck” to me, so when I was around the talent I talked to them; not much else to do when crew is setting up a shot. The cool thing was when they got to find out that I had just gotten done playing football at the University of Georgia, it opened up avenues of communication other than film talk, and knew I was just speaking to them as a normal human being. I felt like I had a very good standing with all of them: Shia LaBeouf is a real cool dude and very funny; his sense of humor is much like mine. Tom Hardy was laid back and easy to speak to, especially when it came to video games. Jason Clarke, who has a thick Australian accent, by the way, did an amazing Southern accent; it was fun to watch him perform. Jessica Chastain was one of the sweetest actresses I have met on a project; completely humble, super talented. She really loved her “Words with Friends” while on set. There was this one actor whose name I wasn’t familiar with at the time – Lew Temple – but once I got to know him while I saw him on set, [I found out] that man is one class act and an extremely down-to-earth guy. It was a pleasure getting to know him.

Did you have any interaction with the film’s screenwriter Nick Cave?

From what I remember, Nick Cave was on set for one of the days I was and he was playing a gangster who was all shot up in a vehicle. There wasn’t much interaction other than that.

What’s next for you?

Next I begin working on a new horror film, Plus One, directed by Dennis Iliadis (the Last House on the Left remake) this month. Ron Ogden, a good friend I made while working on Lincoln vs. Zombies, was also cast as one of the main roles. (That’s definitely going to be another fun time on set.) I have another film, which is about the most lawmen ever killed in the line of duty, with a leading role as Jennings Young, one of the cop killers. Then later this year I will be one of the leads in another horror film, about the spirit of a witch coming back to take her revenge on a town for her gruesome murder. There are some I can’t speak about yet, but once I am free to, I will share, and hopefully some more projects will be added to the rest of the year.

What would you consider your dream job as an actor?

I am a huge Punisher comic book fan, and if one day I got the opportunity to be Frank Castle, I would do it in a heartbeat. Other than that, every day on set is a dream come true.

If you found yourself surrounded by an army of the undead, would you want Lincoln by your side, or is there perhaps another former president who you think could kick some serious ass?

I think Lincoln would hold his own; that man could probably wrestle some of those zombies to death. Honestly, I would love to have Kennedy and Reagan. With their WWII experience and my zombie-video-game experience, we would decimate that zombie horde!

TEOS thanks Chris for his time. Fans can follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies is now on video from Asylum Films.

IT CONTINUES...

Alexander Kinyua Ate Kujoe Agyei-Kodie's Brain, Heart In Maryland, Cops Say

In yet another horrifying incident of human flesh-eating this week, a student in Maryland allegedly admitted to devouring his roommate's brain and heart.

Alexander Kinyua, a 21-year-old Morgan State University student, admitted to murdering his roommate Kujoe Bonsafo Agyei-Kodie, who was reported missing last Friday, cops told the Baltimore Sun.

Alexander Kinyua allegedly admitted to killing 
his roommate, then eating his heart and 
portions of his brain.

Kinyua's father called police late Tuesday night when Kinyua's brother reportedly found human remains -- a head and two hands -- in a metal tin in the basement. The brother and father left the room for a short time, but when they came back, the body parts had been moved and Kinyua was washing out the tin, the paper reported.

Officers searched the house and arrested Kinyua. The man allegedly confessed a shocking revelation: not only had he killed Agyei-Kodie by cutting him up with a knife and then dismembered him, he ingested parts of the victim's brain and all of his heart. He then allegedly dropped most of the remains in a Dumpster behind a church in Joppatowne.

It's yet unclear what Kinyua's motive may have been, but he was charged with first-degree murder on Wednesday. In another incident on May 20, he was charged with first-degree assault when he allegedly beat a fellow student randomly with a baseball bat and then fled into the woods.

The gruesome case comes on the heels of a similar attack in Miami on Saturday, in which Rudy Eugene, 31, was killed by cops while in the process of chewing off most of a homeless man's face.

Ronald Poppo, 65, is alive, but the bizarre flesh-eating attack left doctors with a literal puzzle in how to put his face back together.

Source.

100 YEARS OF FRANKENSTEIN

REVIEW: ABRAHAM LINCOLN VS. ZOMBIES

Someone fetch Lincoln his parcel. He’s got some ghoul heads to chop off.

Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies just might be the boldest move from The Asylum to date (though perhaps not as bold as their 9/11 movie, but, you know). The Asylum has received some pretty substantial hate over the years for their shameless direct-to-video rip-offs of big budget and theatrical horror remakes. (Depending on where the lawsuit stands, they may or may not currently have American Battleship on shelves while the “real” Battleship is currently sinking in theaters.) The Asylum’s defense of this tactic has always been that they were/are merely doing the same thing big Hollywood was doing – giving audiences a movie they’ve already seen, but with a similar sounding title.

Using that argument, there really is no excuse for Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies, their take on the bigger-budgeted Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Slayer, hitting theaters soon. To rip off such an absurd concept and title…that goes above and beyond simply pointing and laughing at a major studio-produced remake. But so far they’ve somehow gotten away scot-free, and with this latest release they’ve added just one more film to their ever-growing archives. Their business model seems a successful one: their casts have gone from complete unknowns to recognizable actors who are either in on the joke or desperate for work.

With that said, Lincoln Vs. Zombies is the best film from The Asylum's hovering-somewhere-over-100-film archive. I’ve seen a lot of The Asylum’s films, and they’ve all left me in various levels of coma. But this one, however…it was pretty watchable. I don’t think I was left injured at all.

The title should more than clue you in what it's about, but the year is 1863, and we find Lincoln dealing not just with the confederacy, but a growing army of the undead. And he’s not the only one fighting the battle. Joining Lincoln are General Stonewall Jackson (leader of the confederate army), Pat Garret (infamous assassin of Billy the Kid) and even a very young and completely unnecessary Teddy Roosevelt, among others whose names the more learned of you should recognize.

When word reaches Lincoln that soldiers “infected” with some kind of disease are all over Fort Pulaski, eating faces and committing all sorts of zombtrocities, he dispatches a group of 12 men (with him at the helm) to visit the fort and see what’s the what. Well, they see what’s the what, all right. GHOULS. Wearing old-fashioned Civil War-era garb and huge bow ties.

As the 12 men begin to die off, one of them begins to doubt Lincoln’s tactics. He thinks the problem could be better taken care of. He’s an actor, you see…with a great big bushy mustache and a small, wooden Derringer. If you stayed awake for five minutes during your American history class, you can see where this is going.

Lincoln vs. Zombies is perfectly disposable entertainment. After seeing the promotional materials for Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Slayer (you know, the “real” Lincoln movie), I will say this: Bill Oberst Jr. plays a far more convincing Lincoln than that nine-year-old kid they found for the Tim Burton-produced film (although with The Asylum's proven relationship with genre legend Lance Henriksen, why the hell didn't they call him??). While he's forced to spit out some cheesy dialogue, his performance is rather straight forward and feels quite genuine. He approaches the "character" as if he were in a more legitimate project. It doesn't stray too far from all the other Lincolns we've seen over the years, but it shouldn't have to. Plus it’s genuinely fun seeing him lop off heads with his switchblade scythe, which impossibly fits into and disappears within the confines of his suit jacket as if we were in a cartoon. And I guess we are.

Some of LvsZ might make you groan. Even though the film’s concept is as subtle as a sledgehammer to a bucket of testicles, Lincoln handing young Roosevelt a shovel and telling him to “speak softly and carry a big stick,” or swinging a scythe at a ghoul head and bellowing “emancipate this!” is still obnoxiously on the nose. If your audience is groaning during a movie with this as your concept, you may have gone too far.

The zombie's make up effects are fairly simple, but effective. The gore effects are fun, if perhaps limited in scope. The gushing blood and flying heads are CGI, and there’s plenty of both.

The last act of the film is shot in the real Fort Pulaski, located in Savannah, and this touch of real history is appreciated, so I'll ignore the fact that the structure clearly showcases all two hundred of its years, and not the thirty it would have been at that time. And I can't say I blame them for not "touching up" any of their surroundings, as I'm sure such a thing would have been forbidden by the National Parks Service. It's a minor complaint, really, given the fort's beauty.

I will definitely say this: LvsZ doesn't end in a way that's indicative of the kind of film it is, or of the kinds of film The Asylum makes. In fact, it's a rather poignant ending that makes you look at the real-life assassination of Abraham Lincoln in a different way. It's certainly not the way I expected an otherwise silly and over-the-top film to end. I suppose there are folks out there who will lambaste the film's plot, calling it disrespectful to the memory of one of our country's greatest leaders, but the ending chosen allows Lincoln some dignity. Not bad for a movie that has something like 50 severed heads and some truly horrendous fake beards.

Sic semper Asylum.

But here is my main gripe:

Historical Figure + Monsters = a really cheap and stupid concept for a movie, regardless of who is producing it. I’m not in too big of a hurry to see the “real” Lincoln movie, but I will say this: its concept is so daringly stupid that it demands a certain kind of respect from the audience. Filmmakers rip off Halloween or Paranormal Activity over and over again, and no one (beyond their annoyance) can muster the enthusiasm to care. And they will continue to be ripped off from now until the end of time because their concepts are (now) very basic. But a former dead president re-imagined as an undead-killing vigilante, stupid as the concept may be, is "special," and as such it does feel a little cheap that it's been re-appropriated in a sort of "ha ha, we're first"-type move. (Although the more films out there bringing exposure to Abraham Lincoln, wildly inaccurate and ludicrous as they may be, the better. I say this because “these kids” today are so massively unaware that they thought Titanic was just a movie, and not based on something that actually happened, so here’s hoping they're aware Lincoln was, ya know, a real dude).

The Asylum’s films have been getting better…in terms of their production levels, cast, and even their ability to produce original (scream!) concepts. I hear they might even be prepping their first theatrical release.

If you're not familiar with The Asylum's repertoire, watch Lincoln vs. Zombies on streaming if you can, or make it a one-night rental from Redbox. If you consider yourself a fan of the mini (mini mini) studio, you'll have a good time with this one. It doesn't ask a lot of you, nor should you of it.

UNSUNG HORRORS: THE MOTHMAN PROPHECIES

Every once in a while, a genuinely great horror movie—one that would rightfully be considered a classic, had it gotten more exposure and love at the box office—makes an appearance. It comes, no one notices, and it goes. But movies like this are important. They need to be treasured and remembered. If intelligent, original horror is supported, then that's what we'll begin to receive, in droves. We need to make these movies a part of the legendary genre we hold so dear. Because these are the unsung horrors. These are the movies that should have been successful, but were instead ignored. They should be rightfully praised for the freshness and intelligence and craft that they have contributed to our genre.

So, better late than never, we’re going to celebrate them now… one at a time.

Dir. Mark Pellington

2002

Sony

United States

I’m not entirely sure audiences knew what they were in for when The Mothman Prophecies hit theaters in the winter of 2002. Once marketing for the film was underway, the mythical (?) and titular antagonist of the film had effortlessly achieved a shape and rictus based on the title alone; audiences concocted in their mind a hulking and unnatural monster that was man-shaped, but sprouted wings and towered over even the tallest person who had claimed to see the monster with their own eyes. The opening weekend of The Mothman Prophecies followed, by less than five months, another horror film that featured a “similar” monster, insofar as the limited imaginations of audiences allowed. It was called “the Creeper,” from the very, very stupid Jeepers Creepers. I honestly believe audiences just weren’t ready for The Mothman Prophecies, which snuck into theaters under the guise of being a more traditional monster movie and was something else entirely.

John Klein (Richard Gere) is a reporter for The Washington Post. He lives in Georgetown with his incredibly gorgeous wife, Mary (Debra Messing). In addition to his role as a reporter, he casually appears on a national television show called “D.C. Review” to discuss politics, but it ain’t no thang. Despite his job and his hot wife, he’s pretty down to earth and not at all arrogant. Because of his career, the Kleins seem to be doing quite well, financially; especially since the film opens with the couple shopping for a new house. They share a good life, and their love is genuine.

But this life they’ve built together, and the future they dream of with infectious enthusiasm, all comes crashing down one cold night as the couple drives home after picking out their dream house. A flash of something murky with glowing red eyes flies at the car with immense speed and causes Mary to lose control. Her head cracks against the window with a sickening shattering of glass, and John immediately rushes her to the hospital, where she, seemingly delirious from the accident, says to John, “you didn’t see it, did you?” Assuming that she is in shock from the accident, he can only tell her no, and ask her what it is she thinks she saw. The question seems impossible to answer, and so she cannot, and tears fill her red, terrified eyes. John goes back to the scene of the accident to see if he can locate the “it” of which Mary speaks. He sees only some glowing red lights atop a construction barrier…and a v-shaped layer of burn residue on the car’s grill.

Mary soon passes away (on Christmas Eve no less); not from the accident, but from the incredibly rare brain tumor (called glioblastoma) growing inside her, and had only been discovered during routine hospital tests following the accident. A notebook found in her hotel room features frantic and hand-scrawled sketches of “angels,” as an orderly describes…but these drawings don’t look angelic at all. They show a dark figure with angry features and wings like a butterfly.

Two years pass. Klein remains isolated and melancholic, turning down offers from friends to be set up on dates. He smiles as he declines, pretending to be amused by the prospect instead of outright destroyed; his sadness is paramount. An impromptu late-night drive to prep for an interview with the Virginian governor begins Klein’s journey into the world of Indrid Cold, aka the mothman. It begins in Point Pleasant, West Virginia, where he meets Connie Mills (Laura Linney), a police sergeant, after a surreal “misunderstanding” at the home of a local named Gordon Smallwood (the always wonderful Will Patton.) You see, after Klein’s car broke down just outside Gordon’s house at 2:30 a.m., he knocked on the door to see about using their phone. He has a shotgun shoved in his face for his troubles and is forced into the bathroom (which is a somewhat creepy place to force a man you’ve captured, once you realize it would be the easiest place to clean...should someone get their head blown off). But instead of Gordon being the “bad guy,” he immediately calls Sgt. Mills and explains to her that Klein has apparently knocked on his door the past two nights, at the same time, asking to use the phone. Even though the audience and John know that’s not true, Gordon seems to believe it intensely. But how could that be? How can John have been in two places at once? How is it John impossibly traveled over 400 miles in just 90 minutes when ordinarily it would have taken six hours? How did he end up in damn-near Ohio when he was aiming for Richmond, Virginia? Just what the fuck is going on in Point Pleasant?

And so it begins.

John and Connie begin to compare notes. She explains that Point Pleasant has been plagued for the past month or so with weird sightings and complaints—of “mothlike” figures with “red eyes;” strange lights; phone calls filled with high-pitched electronic shrieks. After visiting one of the eyewitnesses, John sees burn residue on a nearby tree that matches what he saw on their car the night of Mary’s crash. And the witness descriptions of the figure itself seem to match Mary’s sketches beat for beat. Whatever’s going on in Point Pleasant has John’s full attention.

John and Gordon begin an uneasy friendship. They begin to depend on each other, trying to figure out this puzzle that the mothman has created. What is it? What does it want? Is it even real?

One night Gordon claims to see a reflection in his bathroom mirror that is not his own, and a howling voice coming out of his sink drain that says the same words over and over for an hour: “Do not be afraid. 99 will die. Denver 9.”

The next day they see the news report: a plane flying out of Denver, Concorde 9, has crashed, killing all 99 passengers on board.

For whatever reason the mothman seems to be warning people of impending disasters, which on the surface doesn’t seem to be something to fear. So then why is the mothman so haunting and strange? Why have people been left physically harmed from its presence?

John seeks out a man named Alexander Leek (a meta-pseudonym for John Keel, author of the book which inspired The Mothman Prophecies.) Leek is a paranoid, afraid, and unstable man. He’s aware of the mothman and of its repertoire. He explains that the mothman doesn't have one form; that it appears in certain ways to certain people based on their ability to perceive what they are seeing. He describes it as an advanced being, observing our lives from afar. John demands to know why the mothman doesn’t just come down and explain itself, and make clear what it wants. Leek responds, “You’re more advanced than a cockroach. Have you ever tried explaining yourself to one?”

The Mothman Prophecies, from the first minute to the last, is draped in an incredibly palpable feeling of eeriness. It doesn’t let up, even in the lightest moments of the film. And the mothman, though never clearly seen beyond quick flashes and fuzzy recollections, is a constant presence. He hovers outside every window, diving in and flying away. The camera moves fluidly to achieve this feeling, especially when swooping rapidly from behind John as he sits in a desolate park. John turns, sensing something behind him, but of course he sees nothing.

If you were to ask me who I felt were some of the most underrated modern directors of our time, Mark Pellington would be on that list. Many directors are accused of exhibiting only style over substance (Zack Snyder comes to mind, as do the Wachowsi Bros.), and while that may be also true of Pellington, that’s only because the man hasn’t been given enough chances to show what he’s got. His 1999 effort, Arlington Road, was an incredibly thrilling and effective look at terrorism on American soil. Following on the heels of the Oklahoma City bombing, which claimed 168 lives, it starred Jeff Bridges as a college professor who slowly begins to realize that his next-door neighbor (Tim Robbins) is a terrorist. It is a nerve-wracking and highly emotional film with a gangbusters performance from Bridges, and its bleak ending is especially powerful. While it wasn’t Pellington’s first effort behind the camera, it had been and probably remains his most high-profile film. Despite the so-so haul that Arlington took in at the box office (it barely recouped its budget), Pellington secured Mothman as his next gig. It would be a film that received so-so notices from critics as well as middling box office returns (though his direction would be praised by Roger Ebert, who lamented that his tremendous skills behind the camera had been wasted on a sub-par screenplay. Agree to disagree.).

Pellington’s direction in Mothman is the strongest of his career. He takes a not-so-traditional concept for a horror movie, steeping it in paranoia and mood, and drenches the film in bleak tones. Pale blues and stark whites litter the screen, and he shoves the bone-crunching harsh winter of Point Pleasant directly into your face. Cold weather has always been intrinsically more effective for a horror film (The Shining, The Thing), and the harsh winds and shorter days drive Point Pleasant citizens off the streets and into their houses, leaving the town at night seemingly deserted.

As mentioned previously, Pellington uses the camera to invoke the presence of mothman whenever appropriate. The camera doesn't move as it has in other films; it starts at ground level and hovers around people’s faces, as if constantly moving around to study them, before shooting off into the sky. It swoops in on John as he stares forlornly out a skywalk window, and before he is whisked away by a doctor, the camera moves just as quickly away again, as if taking off back into the night.

Eyewitness accounts of Indrid Cold are painted with swirling and red-tinted light, and each recollection of the encounter are simplistically but eerily effective. There are several sequences peppered throughout the film that pull you in and give you the chills, regardless if you’ve let the film take you where it had intended. The most effective sequence in the film has Klein alone in his dingy and dark motel room, and Indrid Cold calling him on the phone. Klein, for personal and obsessive reasons that have nothing to do with all he has learned, but everything to do with his deceased wife, refuses to believe Indrid is the mythical figure everyone in Point Pleasant seems to believe. And so Klein rushes around the room, testing Cold’s so-called omniscience:

Where is my watch?

 In your shoe...under the bed.

What’s in my hand?

Chaaaapstick.

[grabbing a book] Third line, page fifty one?

"A broken smile beneath her whispered wings."

They are things Indrid couldn’t possible know, but he somehow does. It’s one of my favorite scenes in any film, grippingly directed with feverish and chilly eeriness.

I have not read the book of the same name by John Keel, but I can assume that screenwriter Richard Hatem took what was most assuredly a "non-fiction" book and created a narrative, featuring characters we could follow in order to experience the strange goings-on of Point Pleasant. The events featured in the film allegedly took place during the 1960s, but were updated to present times for the 2002 film. From what I’ve learned about mothman from other sources (there is an exhaustive, almost three-hour documentary called Eyes of the Mothman, which tells you everything you’ve ever wanted to know), The Mothman Prophecies includes many of the events that were said to have taken place in Point Pleasant.

As for Richard Gere as an actor, I can’t say I’m either a supporter or a detractor. The film for which he received the highest accolades of his career, American Gigolo, was a film for which I could barely stay awake, and except for his wonderful and evolving performance in Primal Fear (his first on-screen pairing with Laura Linney), I haven’t exactly been the ideal demographic for his last decade of film roles. His performance in Mothman, however, is certainly worth praising. He plays a man so emotionally stricken by the death of his wife that he falls effortlessly into the hands of Indrid Cold, who uses Mary’s image to fuck with his mind. His performance is split right down the middle, maintaining his objectivity as an investigative journalist, but also allowing himself up be swept up into the town’s paranoia and outright fear of this mystical figure. Klein is emotionally invested in the town’s victimization as well as his own personal heartache, but at the same time he sees a mystery that needs to be solved, so much that he’s willing to abandon his position at The Washington Post. His obsession with the mothman fuels him and gives him purpose, because to him, it’s not just about finding out who this “man” is, but really finding out what he had to do with his wife’s death…if he even did. It’s an interesting conflict, in that we as the audience don’t know when the investigation stops being objective and starts becoming personal.

I love Laura Linney. I will always and forever love anything she does; she’s as beautiful as she is talented. While this isn’t her best role (for me personally, that would be the criminally under-seen You Can Count On Me), it’s certainly not a bad one. In this day and age, actors are woefully miscast for their roles, taking on characters for which they are not suited whatsoever (my personal favorite is Tara Reid as a paleontologist in the ludicrous Alone in the Dark), but Linney believably embodies a small-town citizen who knows all her people by name. In the film she is strong and intelligent, but never abandons the soft side that the audience as well as Klein depends on. Linney isn’t set up as the generic romantic interest…just a potential one. In the last act of the film, it’s clear that Linney cares for John. What’s unclear is the kind of companionship she is offering him. Is she there for him as a friend? Or more? The audience is never let in on that secret, but what we do know is it’s up to Klein to answer the phone.

Will Patton is among my favorite character actors, and his career has touched down in almost every genre: horror/thriller with fellow Unsung Horror Copycat and The Fourth Kind, action with Armageddon, and drama with Brooklyn’s Finest (again with Gere). His role here is quiet and understated, but extremely evocative of fear. He doesn’t just look afraid, he is afraid. He speaks in whispers, as if fearful that Indrid Cold will hear him and come looking for him.

The score by tomandandy is appropriately droning and moody. There's not much "musically" going on with their score, but that doesn't mean it's not an effective one. Every inch of the film is tinged with their electronic humming, brimming with psychedelic and unusual choices...and it all comes to a head at the bridge finale, where their pulse-pounding music makes the sequence ten times more powerful. (Seriously, if you don't have chills throughout this entire sequence, you're not alive.) 

While I can understand people not liking The Mothman Prophecies, I certainly can’t condone it. No, it’s not your typical rubber-suit monster streaking through town and punching off heads. It doesn’t swoop down from the skies and clutch a baby in its talons before disappearing into the night. Mothman’s presence is psychological. It takes the form of other people to get inside their heads. The human race is a rat in a maze, and the mothman gets its rocks off on providing us with information and seeing how we react. Yes, the mothman does warn of impending disasters, but we never get the sense it’s because of the goodness of its heart. It’s more that it wants to see if we’re smart enough to recognize the hints it leaves us; it wants to see what choices we make; it wants to see if the human race is worth the mark we're leaving on the universe.

Modern movie audiences don’t like ambiguous films, and even more, ambiguous endings. Sure, they love the film if it’s something like Inception, where people shoot guns and float around for hours at a time, because it’s provided all the thrills necessary for a typical mainstream film. But The Mothman Prophecies is a slow burn. It starts off as a slow burn, and except for the wonderful and heart-pumping bridge climax, it remains a slow burn. Most people just don’t have the patience for films that take their time, but for those that do, I’m confident that The Mothman Prophecies is a film that will remain effective for years to come.

IT BEGINS...

Naked Man Allegedly Eating Victim's Face Shot And Killed By Miami Police

One man is dead and another hospitalized after a bizarre assault off Miami's MacArthur Causeway reportedly forced a police officer to open fire.

City of Miami police say the incident began Saturday afternoon about 2 p.m. when an officer responded to reports of 2 men fighting in the bike path of the Biscayne Boulevard exit ramp, alongside the Miami Herald's parking garage. There, according to the Herald, the officer observed a naked man eating another man's face:

The officer...approached and saw that the naked man was actually chewing the other man's head, according to witnesses. The officer ordered the naked man to back away, and when he continued the assault, the officer shot him.

The attacker continued to eat the man, despite being shot, forcing the officer to continue firing. Witnesses said they heard at least a half dozen shots.

According to CBS Miami, police sources said the victim had "virtually no face" and was unrecognizable.

"[Officers] attempted to separate them, there was some sort of confrontation," Miami Police spokesman Willie Moreno told Local10.

Police said his victim was transported to Ryder Trauma Center at Jackson Memorial Hospital.

Officials have yet to identify the officer involved, the deceased, or the victim. The incident snarled traffic on the causeway for hours during busy Memorial Day weekend as multiple lanes of vehicles were routed around the crime scene.

 Source

REVIEW: EVIDENCE

Evidence is a wild ride. Completely unpredictable, and perhaps purposely misleading, it takes you in a direction you don't expect. While it does fall victim to some of the more usual found footage pitfalls, it's extremely rewarding to the viewer who sticks with it until the end.

The set up to Evidence is sinfully basic, so much to the point that it might even be offensive. Oh, what's that? Two guys and their girlfriends are going camping in the woods and one of them is going to film it because he wants to inexplicably document his friend's first camping trip? Mm, sounds like...the dullest documentary ever.

Our young cast ranges from sweet to abrasive, but never seem disingenuous. Is it easy to accept that the guy who runs the camera for the first act of the film is kind of a dick? Yes. Whether because that's a realistic attribute, or because the found footage sub-genre has successfully created that trope, it doesn't matter. He's a dick, and he only becomes more of a dick as the kids' camping trip ensues.

One, two, skip a few...once the thing stalking them in the woods makes an appearance, and once the kids begin running through the woods at night, you will roll your eyes. Because we've all been here before, haven't we? First with Blair Witch, and then with its many imitators, we've crossed this bridge. Sure, the fleeting glimpses the audience gets of the creature are cool. From what we can see it's an interesting design, but it's really not enough to sustain an entire film. What very misleadingly seems to be a tale of creature versus kids soon descends into a whole other kind of madness entirely.

There are certain things a movie can do that make me love it. Some of these I've mentioned before, such as surprising me when it sheds its surface-level meagerness and becomes something more. But I also love when a movie makes me feel like an asshole for dismissing it. I've seen many films for which I had high hopes, but only to give up once I was able to determine they were not going to provide me with what I had come for. And I gave up during Evidence. "This is what's happening?" I'd said. "How fucking boring."

Well...I'm an asshole. And that pleases me. I wish I could gush about how visceral and thrilling and FUN the last 15-20 minutes are, but that would completely ruin it for you. And for once the trailer (embedded below) barely scratches the surface of the more intense scenes of the film.

However (there's always a however), the film is not without its problems.

There are two kinds of found footage movies: one where people set out to capture on video exactly what it is that ends up killing them, and one where people bring a camera to their otherwise mundane excursion and happen to capture...well...the thing that kills them. Because this movie wallows in the latter, the only thing to initially maintain our interest is the kids themselves. We have no investigation into an urban legend, no inkling of any kind of what's running rampant in the woods. Because of that, we have no "hook." And since the kids are, at first, our only focal point, there are too many instances of them (the guys especially) veering off into unlikeable territory. This isn't necessarily a fault of the film - people are dicks in real life; I've met them, so have you - but once it gets to the point where you are begging the creature to burst from the woods and take off some heads, you wonder if that's exactly what the filmmakers wanted, or if they failed to restrain their actors accordingly.

Basically, if Heather from Blair Witch got on your nerves, make way for Ryan: King Dick.

Most of the film feels genuinely acted, but every once in a while a line of dialogue or snippet of a performance will feel very forced and scripted, and it can be momentarily distracting. One of the most offensive things I think a movie can do is have a character provide exposition by talking to him/herself. There's something cheap and lazy about it that doesn't sit well with me. While Evidence doesn't depend on this as a crutch, it does utilize it so a character can express how he/she is feeling, and what's supposed to be a real, captured-in-the-moment experience feels less so.

Like many other found footage movies, Evidence is at its most effecting and thrilling in the last act of the film, and while it's blocked and choreographed very well, our filmmakers may have gone a little overboard in post production. There are way, WAY too many instances of the camera momentarily freezing, blacking out, or going on the fritz as our characters flee from their stalkers. What was supposed to provoke a feeling of realism only serves to be an annoyance.

Evidence (written by Ryan McCoy, who also plays Ryan, and directed by Howie Askins) was completed in 2010 and made the film festival rounds in 2011. Some of the more popular horror sites deservedly lauded the film, which is how it caught my attention. Currently there are no plans for a North American release, but I hope it will be out sometime this year.

Fans of both the found footage sub-genre and the more visceral aspects of the recent Cabin in the Woods should give it a watch. Unlike Blair Witch and Paranormal Activity, Evidence does not believe in the less-is-more technique. As John Carpenter once said, if you have a cool looking monster, show the fucking thing. Evidence will show you things that will linger in your mind long after the credits roll.