It’s extremely rare these days to find a film that genuinely feels like it has something new and interesting to say about the horror genre. The field is simply too crowded with torture-porn gore-fests, remakes and sequels. Flashes of originality are rare and to be treasured. The problem with that is, when someone does show a bit of originality, the danger of over-praising the work is strong. I approached Michael Dougherty’s directorial debut with some skepticism because of that. It had been highly praised, yes, but by nerds, who tend to mistake pandering for quality. Dougherty was also partially responsible for both X2 and Superman Returns, and those are not strong entries to have on one’s curriculum vitae.
I needn’t have worried. The film really is that good.
Part of why it works so well, I think, is that it wears its influences on its sleeve quite boldly. There are strong hints of Creepshow, particularly in the comic-book style montage that opens and closes the film. Since that’s pretty close to the pinnacle of the anthology horror film, it’s a good goal to set for yourself, and while time and public opinion will be the judge, I think Trick ‘r Treat comes pretty damn close to meeting it. There’s also a strong similarity to the classic British horror anthologies as well, more Amicus than Hammer, with the grim humor and tales of people getting their comeuppance for sometimes only vaguely defined transgressions. I’ve also spotted several comparisons to Pulp Fiction, which…don’t quite ring true to me, and suggests that American audiences (or nerd audiences) are so limited in their viewing habits that any hint of inter-related stories or non-linear structure make them think of Tarantino.
So, why does it work? This is where I feel the need to bite my tongue. The film, frankly, is too new, and I like it too much, to delve too strongly into the structure and nuance for fear of spoiling it for people. And I really don’t want to spoil it, because with my strongest recommendation I’m telling you to go see this. But one of the reasons it works is that it hits several good horror archetypes as well as working recognizable and well known Halloween specific myths and habits into the structure. You’ve got human monsters, and you’ve got the supernatural, and they collide in interesting and unexpected ways. And on the Halloween side of things, you’ve got the notion of “safety rules” to follow, and consequences for violating them, Halloween pranks and, of course, the social contract that is trick-or-treating.
As a horror fan, there are a number of things to admire as well. You’ve got gore, but gore isn’t the point. You’ve got nudity, because good horror cheese requires some nudity. You’ve also got a horror film that isn’t afraid to kill children. This last fact is often cited as the reason why the film sat on a shelf for two years before being dumped to DVD, though personally I suspect it had more to do with studio executives skittish of releasing a holiday themed film against whatever Saw sequel was scheduled for release that year.
The cast does a tremendous job as well. Brian Cox is at a point in his career where he can essentially do no wrong, and he does a good job here as a stereotypical grumpy neighbor who doesn’t get into the Halloween spirit (in the weakest of the four main stories, sadly, as it bears strong similarities to a long-ago episode of Tales from the Darkside). Dylan Baker has a nice role as well, in what is probably the most spoiled storyline judging from reviews. And Anna Paquin is quite good as well playing a virginal young woman dragged along by her older sister for some Halloween hijinks. Even the film’s mascot, the little round-headed kid, Sam, works well, functioning as a silent observer of the stories that unfold around him. It’s the best use of a horror “host” and even when he gets a starring role in a story, it’s one that’s tonally appropriate both for the film and the character.
And that’s as much as I can say without spoiling the movie. Really, there are some absolutely brilliant dark jokes that I can’t even hint at, clever but natural twists, and some genuine shocks and surprises. Just go watch it.
Entries (RSS)
Cox, Paquin and Baker? Sold.
Seriousy, the only thing I don’t like about the film at this time? It is listed as “very long wait” in my Netflix queue…would you recommend this as a purchase and skip the wait?
Agreed, Dorian.
I was excited because I’d heard good things, but I didn’t want to get too excited because of nerd hyperbole. But I really enjoyed the movie, and was happy to see something largely original and creepy and fun. It’s got a very EC Comics feel, with the trademark comeuppances and all (I kept waiting for someone to shout GOOD LORD!), and I love the EC/Tales from the Crypt/Creepshow style of horror.
It’s an excellent little movie, and I think it’ll become a Halloween staple at my house.
Thom–I’m a cheapskate, and impulse bought it because I was able to get it for $12. Anything more than, say, $15 in stores and wait for Netflix to get it to you.
But then, I say that about ALL DVDs.
I was able to get it pretty cheap in Blu-Ray (by BD standards)…pretty much anyone with taste in horror I respect has given this a pretty solid thumbs up. I plan to sit down shortly and give it a go. :)
I am definitely glad I picked it up. I can easily see watching this on a yearly basis. It probably is one of the best horror Anthologies since the first Creepshow. Some really good creepy moments, some legit scares, good dark humor, a good cast. I definitely agree with the positive praise this film is getting. I especially loved how instead of a group of people telling each other the stories, or there being a master story teller, there is just the ongoing presence of Sam, and the stories are loosely connected in that they are happening almost concurrently in the same small town.