Connect with us

Reviews

‘Piranhaconda’ Is One of the Best SyFy Original Creature Features

Published

on

I was introduced to horror at a young age. My aunt had shown me the Universal Monster movies before I was 10. Some of my fondest memories were watching Arsenic and Old Lace or Abbott and Costello meet the (fill in the blank) at a restaurant in Hawley, PA called Mugs. But out of all the horror (and comedy-adjacent horror) I watched as a child, my favorite type of films to watch were the then SciFi Originals (and eventually SyFy Originals). From awful Pumpkinhead sequels to Sharknado, I tuned into these films with my mom nearly every Saturday. To my shock, one of these SciFi Originals completely slipped by without my knowledge…Piranhaconda.

And yes, I know that this is technically a SyFy Original. It will always be SciFi to me, dammit! OH, also, to make sure I don’t drive anyone too crazy, we’ll refer to SciFi Originals as SFOs from here on out.

Why SciFi Originals Get a Bad Rap

Throughout my life, I’ve been laughed at by “serious” film watchers for my love of SFOs. It’s easy to write these films off. Z-list stars, shoddy effects, and gratuitous soft-core nudity aren’t for everyone. I would be the first to agree that many of these films have more cons than pros. Within each of these films lies a deep passion for storytelling and adventure, no matter how badly written the story may be. Every once and a while, though, the stars aligned for SciFi.

Lovegrove (Michael Madsen) is on the ultimate mission to find the creature that killed his father years ago. Rose (Terri Ivens) is a script supervisor who is trying to keep Milo (Chris De Christopher) on track for the filming of Head Chopper 3. Pike (Michael Swan) is a mercenary hellbent on kidnapping the cast of Head Chopper (or something like that) for ransom. And, unfortunately for them, Piranhaconda is set on killing them all.

How Piranhaconda Became a Standout SFO Creature Feature

Piranhaconda is one of the few SciFi animal mashups that I didn’t have the opportunity to see when it aired (and reaired). For some reason, SciFi pumped tons of energy (time and money) into these Corman-esque (and produced!) features. I’m not sure where the turning point was for the channel to switch from attempting rebooted sequels (like Pumpkinhead) to films like Megasomething Vs Giantsomething. All I know is, I’m not complaining. After finally watching Piranhaconda, all I can wonder is how they managed to get this one right.

Advertisement

Chopping Mall’s Jim Wynorski was no stranger to these animal amalgam features. His work post-2000 was full of direct-to-video flicks that were easily lost to the passage of time. I’ve seen quite a few of his animal-based pictures, but none were as tight and entertaining as Piranhaconda. To boot, Michael Madsen was no stranger to these types of pictures. So, how did this film get the formula right?

A Surprisingly Cohesive Story for a Creature Mashup

The film starts off on shaky ground by introducing three sets of characters (four if you count the flower researchers, who immediately die). It’s a worrying thing and left me wondering just how anyone could reel in this off-the-rails mess. But, to my complete surprise, they do. Except for the flower researchers, every single story beat gets resolved in a way that feels complete and interesting. Even if some of those beats get resolved by a red, misty death of a piranhaconda.

Of course, the film is fraught with continuity errors and awful muzzle flash plug-ins. That’s to be expected. What was unexpected was just how decent the piranhaconda looks. Like how the sharks look in Sharknado (the first and NONE of the others), the piranhaconda looks pretty damn solid. Some of the creature shots really show the film’s budget, but for an SFO, I was shocked by how good it looked. The biggest issue with the snake-fish is its kills. It does become quite bland when the creature kills its nth person, and they simply dissolve into a red mist. Predictability and sameness are a huge thorn in the side of films like this. If you can’t keep cable TV viewers on their toes, what reason do they have to come back after the next commercial break?

Shockingly Solid Performances for a SyFy Original

With any low/micro-budget film, you need to be on your toes (as a director) with the acting. Audiences simply won’t continue to watch a film when its acting is atrocious–something that many SFOs fail at. This may sound hyperbolic, but Piranhaconda is Michael Madsen at his best SINCE his Kill Bill work with Tarantino. Sure, he does a metric ton of hat acting (hatcting?) that he would inherit from Kill Bill, but it’s not as distracting as it would become throughout his career. And the aged porn stars even excel in the majority of their scenes. Piranhaconda may just be one of the most well-acted SFOs to date. Though with films like Sharknado 2 and on, Ian Ziering and Tara Reid wouldn’t set that bar too high.

If you’ve ever had a fleeting thought to check out an SFO, you can’t really go wrong with Piranhaconda. It hits all of the beats of an SFO but still finds a way to separate itself from the mold. Out of the animal amalgam films, Piranhaconda feels different enough to have its own footing in the oeuvre of SFO quick flicks. Give it a shot, and succumb to slithery, quick-swimming terror that is the Piranhaconda.

Advertisement

Brendan is an award-winning author and screenwriter rotting away in New Jersey. His hobbies include rain, slugs, and the endless search for The Mothman.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Reviews

‘The Bay’ Turns Fact Into Fiction

Published

on

As much as I love horror, genre fans can be a bit…gatekeepy. Over the years, we’ve seen prominent comedy legends dip their toes into horror (Jordan Peele, Chris Rock, Danny McBride) to varying success. Many genre fans want nothing to do with comedy legends getting into horror, though for Peele and Rock, there’s probably another reason people look down on their horror films. We’ve seen something similar the past few years with YouTubers getting into the horror game as well; why are horror fans so weird about who writes/directs horror films? But what many people don’t know is that one of found footage’s most powerful films was created by a truly incredible non-genre filmmaker. So, how exactly did The Bay come to be?

The Bay’s Found Footage Story and Plot Breakdown

Investigative reporter Donna Thompson (Kether Donohue) finds herself in the crosshairs of one of the 21st century’s most prominent stories. Denizens of Clairidge, Maryland, are falling ill to a mysterious disease that’s covering them in boils, lesions, and pustules. Told through a series of leaks, after the government desperately tried to wipe this reporting, Donna retells the harrowing story that killed nearly the entire town. But what exactly is behind these illnesses, and can they even be stopped?

How Barry Levinson Created The Bay

The Bay writer/director Barry Levinson is one of film’s heavy hitters. His directing (and in some respective cases writing) credits brought us some of the greatest films of all time, with Rain Man, Sleepers, Good Morning, Vietnam, and Man of the Year, to name a few. How did this Oscar-winning director find his way into genre filmmaking, and found footage at that? From what I can tell, Levinson was approached to make a documentary about the Chesapeake Bay and its ongoing pollution. Since this topic had already been covered in documentary form, Levinson decided to take a fictional and horror approach to this all-too-real problem. From there, The Bay was born.

Timely Environmental Horror and Real-World Commentary

Taking real issues in the world and adding a horror flair to them has been one of the best ways for filmmakers to disseminate issues and deliver hard-hitting commentary. Around this time, 2012, is when Vice was really becoming a voice online with some groundbreaking work. For Barry Levinson to decide to tell this story, about the real pollution in the Chesapeake Bay, in the found footage medium, was the best decision he could have made. Levinson’s decision brings an air of authenticity and exists almost as a call to action. It’s more or less a feeling of, “this is happening in a town near you.”

Why The Bay Is One of the Best Found Footage Horror Movies

What really makes The Bay work more than most other found footage films is Levinson’s experience in traditional filmmaking. I love this subgenre; it’s my favorite. But I know, as well as most found footage fans, that there is an overwhelming amount of trash. While the subgenre, now, merely exists as a conduit for aspiring filmmakers to tell a story on a shoestring budget, it’s lost its way. Have an idea for one scare? Throw 60 minutes of aimless meandering through the woods and give someone a Canon Vixia! You have yourself a found footage movie. And while I love and appreciate how many people try to make films in this subgenre, it’s become as polluted as the Chesapeake Bay.

Advertisement

The Bay is one of the few found footage films that uses its subgenre to its advantage, rather than as a budget constraint. Granted, Levinson is in a much better position to do that than most filmmakers. But the director’s understanding of traditional storytelling makes The Bay one of the most captivating films within the subgenre. While The Bay excels with its storytelling, it’s SFX department head Chris Bridges who brings the true terror to life.

Practical Effects and Body Horror That Just Work

From the isopod-filled fish to the gory, decimated citizens of Clairidge, The Bay is a truly disgusting film. Many found footage films find themselves blowing their budget on one, maybe two, stinger(s). The Bay, once it really gets going, constantly hits you with blood, viscera, and squirmy things. It uncomfortably wriggles under your skin until you just can’t take a second longer.

The Bay and the Decline of Found Footage Horror

To wrap this up, there is an interesting parallel to The Bay and the subgenre as a whole. Found footage, at this time, was ramping up to be a landfill of ideas; it was figuratively being polluted by chicken shit. The Bay stepped up to show audiences that new, exciting, and terrifying films could still exist within the subgenre. But that also means we shouldn’t sit idly by to be force-fed garbage. We can step up and say enough is enough. Don’t make justifications for bad found footage films (garbage) as it floods the subgenre (waterways). Because if there is enough bad found footage (garbage/chicken shit), then the subgenre will collapse (water will become polluted/we will all die).

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Reviews

‘Disclosure Day’ Review: Gorgeous Visuals Battle Over-Stuffed Script

Published

on

Steven Spielberg’s Disclosure Day is a film so close to greatness, but one leashed by itself from attaining it. The first science fiction film from Spielberg in eight years has base elements which are truly fantastic. The mystery is compelling, and the performances can be emotionally resonant. And despite how simple and familiar the set pieces and genre tropes it revels in are, Disclosure Day has some of the most thrilling moments audiences will see in a film this year.

But what should be a knockout summer blockbuster becomes bloated. It’s a film that could easily be a perfect score but suffers from its approach. Considerable pacing and scripting issues dial back the appeal of its ten out of ten visuals and leave you thinking about what could have been one of the best Spielberg films of all time.

What Is Disclosure Day About?

As international tensions rise, the world reaches a tipping point. Nations prepare to go to war, and the conflict of nuclear powers threatens to send humanity back into the Stone Age. But an insurgent group hopes to avoid destruction by unlocking a secret chapter of human history and sharing it with the world: the story of humans and their first contact with aliens.

Up against the shadowy government contractor Wardex, a rogue group races to unveil the truth. Caught in the web of intrigue are a hacker named Daniel (Josh O’Connor) and a weather reporter named Margaret (Emily Blunt), whose proximity to the struggle and its origins becomes impossible to ignore. Hunted by Wardex director Scanlon (Colin Firth), the fate of the world hangs in the balance as the duo attempts to give the entire human race full disclosure.

A Balancing Act Between Tension and Wonderment

For the most part, Disclosure Day has Spielberg in rare form. The immediate mental leap that fires off is to try and drive home comparisons to Close Encounters, though that instinct detracts from the unique balancing act on display. The film is able to juggle between evoking a sense of wonderment and a sense of pure dread with just how it’s shot. Crossing the spectacle of psychic phenomena with the tension of a Cold War spy-thriller is something we haven’t seen from him in any one project. It’s a hybrid, and a fascinating blending of genres at that.

Advertisement

This balancing act is primarily driven by an absolutely packed and powerful ensemble cast. Emily Blunt plays Margaret with effortless odd and endearing charm as she gets thrown headfirst into the deep end. The quirks of her character evolve into a fully fleshed out persona that reminds you why Blunt has top billing. Josh O’Connor plays his part as the yin to Margaret’s yang beautifully as well; his sober terror as he finds himself on the run is a fun contrast that, when placed opposite of Blunt, renders great chemistry between the two as they’re magnetically drawn to each other in search of the truth.

Disclosure Day Gives Us One of the Best Sci Fi Villains

Colin Firth’s absolutely nefarious Noah Scanlon is one of the best villains in a science fiction film in a long time, especially during the movie’s most memorable confrontation against Daniel’s girlfriend Jane. His performance is about as finely tuned as it is frightening. And as far as Colman Domingo’s rebel leader Hugo goes, it’s clear why his pivotal dialog was the core of all the marketing material. There’s a steady calmness that could only come from an actor as seasoned as Domingo slipping into his role like a glove. He and Firth are highlights, even if they are delegated mostly to supporting roles. Together, the entire cast moves like clockwork.

Lack of Confidence, Thy Name Is Dialogue

But while the cast feels perfect for the roles they’re given, and they do great with what they can, the nature of so much dialog in Disclosure Day is repetitive and obvious. There’s a wild number of moments that would be truly golden if they weren’t shot down by characters stating not only their emotions but also the obvious things that are happening in front of them.

Some moments should fundamentally feel like characters are having a massive breakthrough or emotional catharsis, but more often than not, it feels more like the audience is having these emotional arcs explained to them. Thematically, the movie is supposed to be about this search for fundamental truths. Truths not just about our place in the universe and in the eyes of God, but about our place with each other. It’s that thematic richness it seeks that makes the bad lines feel like so much salt in the wound. There are moments where these intrinsic questions could be asked with dimension and depth, but instead they’re flattened out by how the characters speak to each other bluntly.

This is the aforementioned proximity to greatness; there’s a hypothetical cut of this film that has so much of this verbal bubble wrap sliced away which would be perfection. But just like on our Earth and the Earth of Disclosure Day, this is not a perfect world. It can only really be chalked up to a diffidence that plagues the writing: a lack of confidence in being able to communicate something subtly, and a simultaneous lack of confidence in the audience to receive that information.

Advertisement

Small Tears in a Sentimental Tapestry

As the film continues with this pattern, the small tears in this emotion driven tapestry become more noticeable. The CGI can be wonky at times. The score can feel leading rather than complementary. The blocking is far from inspired, especially given how many scenes there are of our characters surrounded by a crowd with bated breath; with this many bodies in motion, the way he places his actors and moves through them feels less thought out.

And most noticeable of all, the film’s hefty runtime is paced poorly, especially in its third act. Make no mistake: it’s a final reel that is visually and sonically gorgeous in where it goes. If cinematographer Janusz Kamiński was ever in a flow state, it is here and now with this film. It feels like there was an abundance of footage and no haste to actually edit out any of it. It feels like a director’s cut that just goes on too long, like many scenes in the film. This is especially apparent in a finale that should be awe-inspiring for how incredible it looks, but ultimately lingers too long and overstays its welcome.

It’s understandable that when working with the most influential voice in cinema history, one might be reticent to cut anything. But Disclosure Day’s lack of restraint with how it unfolds exacerbates many small issues that will leave some viewers with regret. Not because it’s irredeemable, or even a movie you won’t enjoy watching, but because it has so much to give and is so captivating in its cinematic vision. And because sadly, that vision is weighed down by the desire to be easily digestible and show all of its emotional tricks. It’s a desire that turns a borderline perfect film into simply another aesthetically pleasing one.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Horror Press Mailing List

Fangoria