The initial premise of Pod is that a brother and sister are on their way to their deranged brother’s cabin because they fear he’s suffering a psychotic meltdown. However, because the movie is called "Pod," you know up front that his delusions are going to be real, because in movies about pods, they always are. If the movie had been titled something else, they might have created a bit more tension with the whole “Is he crazy, or are there pod people?” conflict. And that would have been a good thing, for two reasons:
1) There’s
someone locked in a basement, and you know it’s either a monster or an
innocent victim. Except that because this movie is called "Pod," you know it’s a
monster. If it were called “Guess What’s In the Basement?” or “Possibly NOT a
Movie About Pods” then the tension might have lasted longer. That last title
would have been especially appropriate because…
****SPOILER ALERT****
2) THERE ARE
NO PODS. Sure, they’re referenced. And I’m pretty sure there’s a crazy drawing
of one on a wall in the brother’s cabin. But there is no scene in a movie
called "Pod" that contains an honest to god pod. If they had titled this “There
Are No Pods,” you probably would go through a lot of the movie assuming the
brother was crazy, only to be surprised by the plot twist, and then delighted
at the end when you looked back and realized that, even though the brother was
not crazy, there were technically no pods!
I’m also pretty sure there was supposed to be a pod. I think
someone made an editorial mistake that they meant to go back and fix and they
forgot! Like when you realize a paragraph is a mess, so you cut out 90% of it,
without realizing that was your only pod scene (!!!), and then you’re like
“Yeah, this looks good. Much tighter.” And now you’ve got a movie called "Pod,"
with no pod. If you think such a terrible mistake in judgment is unlikely, then
you probably haven’t seen Pod.
The Story Arc
In every horror movie, there are things you’re either
actively trying to figure out, or at least anticipating. In Pod, you should be
trying to figure out if the brother’s crazy and who is in the basement. But,
as discussed, you’re not. Instead, you’re wondering “How are these assholes
going to die? And is it going to satisfy me?”
Because the characters are the worst. Only the crazy brother
is remotely likeable, and his hair is the best thing about the whole movie. It
looks like he shaved his head and put on a toupee backward. It’s amazing. If
the movie had been titled “Psycho Hair,” or “Hell Toupee,” it would have been
much more accurate.
His death is perplexing because he slits his own throat (he
knows he’s being taken over by the parasite or whatever) and you know he’s
going to come back evil. But he never does. Or you never see him do it,
although there’s a second monster at the end of the movie that might be him.
It’s probably him. But that only occurred to me days later. There’s no cue that
the crazy brother who slit his own throat is turning into a critter, or that he
has risen. Is that scene also on the editing room floor?
The sister’s death is satisfying because she is a human
alarm clock. Of all the screaming, histrionic females in horror history, she
may be the most grating. The death itself is generic: she gets shot. But, god,
what a relief.
The Performances
In a movie titled "Pod," that has no pod, the performances
stand out as the worst part. I don’t even want to talk about them. Okay, the
crazy brother does a fine job. He acts really crazy. In fact, I’m positive he
is or has been a drug addict. Here’s why: when an actor who isn’t a drug addict
plays a drug addict, they focus on one tic, and that becomes their go-to.
Because you don’t need more than that. Just close your eyes hard and open them
wide every 10 seconds or so and everyone gets it. But the crazy brother has
ALL the ticks.
The sane brother is awful. All of his interactions with the
other characters are terrible. Just like I’m sure that the crazy brother is
REALLY a drug addict. The sane brother makes me sure that the person who wrote
this film is an asshole. Because why else would your characters be such jerks
to each other? Why would you make a movie called "Pod" and not have a pod in it?
In the end, everyone is killed by an agent who is presumably
a part of the conspiracy that is responsible for pods and pod monsters. Except
the agent is an overweight, older man in frumpy detective clothes with some
really obvious hair dye. It’s like the bad guy from this movie is the extra
from another movie who wandered onto the set and just started shooting people.
There’s a scene where he’s just shot the sane brother and
he’s supposed to walk through the snow toward the house. But the snow is hard
and uneven and his shoes are slick. It’s the sort of thing any director would
look at and reflexively scream “CUT!!!” But instead of reshooting and having
him walk up the driveway or breaking up the snow, they just wrapped that
shit. And now that I think about it, I am sure that nothing was left on the
editing room floor, because there was no editing room floor. This whole movie
is first takes.
When the sane brother descends into the basement to investigate who’s down there, it’s a little scary. It’s dark, you know there’s a monster and the only light source is a naked light bulb. But when the monster finally attacks, it looks like a human/booger hybrid, and it mostly seems to scratch people.
Oh! Oh! It’s voice! Oh god. It has the feeblest monster
scream ever. It’s like they took two licensed monster screams, played them at
the same time, and turned the volume way down to kind of a “Eeeeeeeerrrgh.” In
retrospect, that sound is a pretty appropriate reaction to this whole movie
and probably would have been the best title too. There’s lots of “Eeeeeeergh”
in it, after all.
My Questions for Paul:
JD: So, Paul, what did the crazy brother’s hair look like to you?
PH: At first, I was thinking Miley Cyrus, but now I'm more on the Adam Duritz/Beaker train. In any case, I guess the idea was that he was CRAZY because he cuts his own hair. Come to think of it, doesn't he cut the rest of it off later in the film? It's like he was already trying to get over this role before the film actually ended.
JD: Did he haul the pod back to his house? Or did he beat up and drag the critter back? How did that go?
PH: What pod?! Joe, I'm worried about you. There is no pod. Have you seen Dr. Nick lately? He's really good--you can tell because he only uses his first name, like Dr. Phil or Dr. Pepper. (Pepper is a first name, right? Like for a girl? Did you know Dr. Pepper was female?)
JD: How do you think they auditioned the sister? How did she win that?
PH: I'm guessing she threw a tantrum and everyone was like rolling their eyes and thinking "whatever" because she has hipster bangs and of course she's going to get cast opposite the guy with the hipster moustache/burns combo.
JD: What the fuck is wrong with this movie?
PH: A deep question. This is the kind of movie that makes you really reassess the meaning of your life. To explain what's wrong with it, you first have to wonder whether there is something wrong with you. Only then can you . . . ah, screw it. This movie is like getting a root canal on the wrong tooth. It sucks from start to finish and afterwards you can't even say that it has made you any better.
JD: On the imdb.com page for this film, the writers are listed as “Mickey Keating, Mickey Keating”. Why do you think that is?
PH: Hmmm. Mickey Keating, Director, would make sense. But "Mickey Keating, Mickey Keating" suggests that his job is being Mickey Keating, as if he's only playing himself. It's one of those brainfuck meta things, where you can't really complain about the directing because it's a piece of avant-garde performance art--Mickey Keating would never direct something this awful. But "Mickey Keating" sure would.
And click here to read Paul's take on Pod.
No comments:
Post a Comment