Krampus (2015) Review

**NO SPOILERS**

The richly grim ancient Germanic myth of Krampus, the creature that tortures naughty children at Christmas time, has been increasing in popularity among Westerners over the last few years. A major release picture about him was inevitable (several more are currently in various stages of production), but luckily it was Trick 'r Treat director Michael Dougherty who was able to put together his film and make it the first (among the wide release audience).

People have a lot of highly divergent expectations coming into this film, so what'll be most helpful is if right off the bat I explain what exactly this film is, and what it isn't.

For those who don't know, Krampus is the spiritual sequel to director Mike Dougherty's previous film, Trick 'r Treat: a cult classic widely regarded as the ultimate Halloween-themed film. So for those of you wondering how Krampus compares to its predecessor, it doesn't capture the Christmas spirit quite as insanely iconically as Trick 'r Treat captured Halloween. But you should have been expecting that, because it'd be superhuman for anyone to be able to repeat something so utterly flawless. That's like asking Nirvana to do another song not just creatively or subjectively better than Smells Like Teen Spirit, but one with an equal impact on pop culture and music trends, of which Teen Spirit was in the all-time elite group to begin with.

But Krampus does deliver the Holiday Spirit, and it never needed to be THE ultimate Christmas Spirit film because we already have that, a dozen times over. Part of what makes Trick 'r Treat so iconic is the mystifyingly scarce number of films that tap into the Halloween atmosphere to begin with, so Trick 'r Treat is like an oasis in the desert. Krampus is competing in a very different arena, one flush with classic Christmas films.

The other thing that a lot of people were wondering about was the film's rating, and whether it could be adequately frightening as a PG-13. Well, make no mistake, this is a Christmas movie and a family movie, with the appropriate sentimentality for that genre. If you're looking for a purely sadistic, gruesome Christmas horror like one of those many slasher-Santa flicks, this is not the right place to look.

But is that really what we wanted out of Krampus, anyway? I'd certainly love to see a more violent version, but that's what we have been and will be getting from the many other Krampus films. Dougherty is so adept at crafting perfect holiday films, it would have been an atrocious waste of his talents to make merely a Christmas-themed horror film like your usual slasher. Instead, he made a movie that is both a great Christmas film and a great horror film, two individual genres each with their own merits. It's both a disturbing monster flick, and a great entry into the tradition of Christmas cautionary fables like A Christmas Carol and It's a Wonderful Life.

But if you're wondering about the horror, oh yes, there's great horror. This kind of just twisted, weird horror is much more affecting to me than your basic ghost, zombie, or murderer who I've been subjected to ten billion times. This movie is classic, creepy,  fun. If you like old school horror movies like Child's Play and Puppet Master then you will appreciate Krampus on an even higher level. The practical creature effects... mm-mm, so sublime! The designs are disturbing and the action is spot-on. It's also a fantastic siege movie, fondly reminiscent of recent cult-hits like Feast and Dog Soldiers. Plus the atmosphere of being stuck in a raging blizzard is both unnerving, and it adds well to the Christmas atmosphere.

Notably, the Krampus myth is handled excellently. They don't pervert or twist the general concept of the myth, which was a very valid concern. A surprisingly huge number of Krampus interpretations in the US have been quick to recast him as Santa's arch nemesis, and place them in an unending duel for the soul of Christmas, like Batman and The Joker over the soul of Gotham.

That's a fun interpretation and all, but I find the real Krampus myth more appealing because it is more primal and elemental. Like the amazing character of Sam in Trick 'r Treat, Krampus is portrayed here as a force of nature that predates Christianity and the holiday he has come to represent. Krampus works in tandem with Saint Nicholas, like a yin and yang. When you make Krampus into an anti-Christmas creature, you're losing the best part of what he does. Krampus exists to make sure you're good for Christmas, he's an altruistic force of violence. He's the symbol for those of us who love Christmas cheer AND horror, be merry or deal with his wrath! Isn't it more frightening to think that Santa is working WITH this monstrous demon, the Krampus?

Ultimately, Krampus isn't a perfect 10 out of 10 like the immaculate Trick 'r Treat, but it has already earned a rightful place in my Christmas pantheon and I'll be watching it at least every couple of years just like Bad Santa and Miracle on 34th St. Comedy isn't my main preference for horror, but the jokes here hold up and it doesn't detract from the terror. And the terror is scary good fun dripping with atmosphere and obscurity, just the way I like it. For horror fans, this will run as a great triple feature with Rare Exports and Gremlins.

In fact, I feel obliged to mention that Krampus is a decisively superior film to Rare Exports, which is exactly what I was hoping. Where Rare Exports was very cool and atmospheric, Krampus is equally so, but with a vastly superior follow through for the story, and a stronger mythos. They're both fun, dark, cool Christmas horror movies, but Krampus doesn't render the villain impotent by... well, I won't spoil Rare Exports, if you haven't seen it. It's a Finnish film about a boy who discovers the "real" Santa, a monster that punishes naughty children. You should check it out if you haven't, it's quite good. But check out Krampus first, as it's quite better. And the film seems to be doing good business, so hopefully it will help Michael Dougherty do many more projects including Trick 'r Treat 2 and possibly Krampus 2 as well.

Jurassic World: Review

The following review does NOT contain SPOILERS. It is, however, quite cynical. So be warned that if you've yet to see the film, my toxic view could potentially poison you against its merits.

Let's start with what this film is not. If you're hoping for a smart, grounded science-fiction thriller like the original Jurassic Park from 1993, temper your expectations quite severely. Jurassic Park was astounding in part because it's one of the more realistic science fiction films in the collective canon and it has a broader point to make about technology and progress, as most good sci-fi does. Like Gattaca or District 9 it deviates from our real world only when necessary and only by extrapolating what's genuinely possible given existing technology and modern mores. Jurassic World... doesn't do that. It's more in line with Jurassic Park's two previous sequels, where the dinosaurs are mere movie monsters and the chase is the whole of the point, there's no broader issue here.

The cloning of dinosaurs isn't technically plausible due to the half-life of DNA, but there are already companies who are, today, this very moment actively pursuing the creation of dinosaur-like creatures through DNA manipulation. Hey, that kind of sounds like the gene-splicing plot of Jurassic World! But, alas, they don't really run with the premise, and it's left strictly up to the audience to connect those dots if they want any potential food for thought. Well... to be honest, there are a couple of good ideas. It's just that their impact is mired by the cheesiness that surrounds them.




Secondly, if you're hoping to gawk intently for a couple of hours at world-class special effects which wondrously bring to life creatures that exist mainly in our dreams and nightmares, like the groundbreaking work done for the original Jurassic Park, you're going to want to rent Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, because you won't get that from Jurassic World. I don't even begin to comprehend how a massive blockbuster like this can get off the cutting room floor with such unrealistic looking CGI. Wasn't someone in charge, wasn't there someone to answer to? But whatever the reason, don't expect to watch Jurassic World and think it looks real. The animals don't.

The saddest part on the FX front was the T-Rex, which supposedly (though unconfirmed) is the original Rex from Jurassic Park. To see him look so shoddy after he looked so real in the original was depressing. The explosions, though, are pretty awesome. The explosion budget must have been significantly higher than the dinosaur budget.

Also, no dilophosaurus. So minus 3,000 points.

So that covers what the film isn't. What the film is, on the other hand, is one heck of a decent action movie, with some well-placed nostalgia fodder and some surprisingly lovable characters. Sure, the dialogue by and large is atrocious. But I found Claire to be both cool and endearing, and it's truly great to finally have a woman take what is probably the lead role in a JP film. And Lowerry, the sardonic operator wearing his taboo Jurassic Park shirt on the day that shit happens to hit the fan at Jurassic World, from his very first moment he establishes himself as the audience's surrogate -- he's the guy saying what we're thinking. And that's clever, that's meta. His mere presence raised the film up a peg or two, by putting it a little closer to the film it clearly should have been.

And what do I mean by that? Jurassic World suffers from a clear conflict of goal, a split-personality. Does it want to be a serious Jurassic Park film, or does it want to be an ingenious satire ala The Cabin in the Woods? The film could go either way: there are genuinely great scenes in a serious Jurassic Park vein, and there are genuinely great scenes in a satirical way. And then there are a lot of scenes that are terrible if you're taking them seriously, but great if you're taking them as self-aware or tongue-in-cheek.

On the serious side, we get to see what a fully-functioning park would look like, and it's a pretty impressive sight. I enjoyed the early portion of the film detailing the technical aspects of day to day park operation, and Claire's involvement in the management thereof, as much as anything else in the film. You also have a couple really scary dinosaur moments that would work great in a proper Jurassic Park sequel. Dr. Henry Wu explains himself pretty well when detailing the creation of the I-Rex and there's a lot of legitimately interesting content for a sequel to explore. They did a good job of setting up a world for Jurassic World, something you don't see much of in the last two Jurassic Park movies. One thing I definitely have to say for the film is that it leaves me excited for a sequel, because the ideas they had on the backburner for this one are the ideas that are actually interesting!

On the tongue-in-cheek side, you have plenty of the most ridiculous scenes in any Jurassic Park film -- and yes, that includes defeating raptors with gymnastics from The Lost World, and the talking raptor from Jurassic Park III. I won't spoil any of JW's scenes here but there are several times when any conscious person is bound to roll their eyes. But what's so intriguing about that stuff is that there were also some highly notable trope-subversions here, some really well-done ones. Almost as if they understood what they were doing. Which points even more strongly to the possibility of Jurassic World being a tongue-in-cheek masterpiece. With a lot more self-awareness, the cheesy scenes would cease to be merely cheesy and they would rise up to the level of fuckin' awesome mayhem, knowingly executed to action trope perfection just like the gratuitous bloodshed bonanza you get from any Quentin Tarantino or Robert Rodriguez film. And there's definitely a strain of that running through this film. It's just, sadly, not allowed to come to the forefront, so you leave the movie wondering whether it was supposed to be stupid on purpose or not.

Final prognosis: You're going to need to see this movie in a theater that serves alcohol. Because the dumber you are, and the drunker you are, the more in love with this film you'll be. And I don't necessarily mean that in a bad way. Jurassic World is fucking awesome. It's full of bad one-liners and likable characters and, heck, there's a brilliant film hidden in there. Just be sure you go into it the right way, and with the right accoutrements. Get drunk. Maybe get stoned. Go into this film like you would Machete 3: Dinosaur Island. And you won't be disappointed. But go into this film expecting it to be the worthy successor we've been hoping for since 1993, and you'll be scratching your head.

Honestly, as a Jurassic Park sequel, it's not bad. It's about on par with the other two sequels, probably better than The Lost World. It's just, after such a long wait, and after Colin Trevorrow's passionate resolve to return to the majesty of the original, we were expecting something on a higher tier. Instead we got something very comparable to the other sequels, and not at all like the original classic.