Skip to main content

Late Phases

Spoilers, typos, and bad grammar ahead. You've been warned.

I've learned, over the years, that walking into a movie with too many expectations leads to my displeasure. In the case of Late Phases, I had read a couple of good reviews and was only hoping I wouldn't hate it too much - and I'll tell you what, I was quite pleased with the movie overall.

The short version of the story reads like this:
Getting old sucks. The slightly longer version of the story reads more like: a blind, aging veteran (Nick Damici of Stake Land) is sent to live in a remote, assisted living community by his son (Ethan Embry - who I always think of as just a shitty comedic actor from the 90's). It'll come as no surprise to any horror fan that this "out of the way" village is plagued by "something terrible" and the Norman Rockwell exterior is shattered pretty quickly by a series of gruesome "animal attacks."

I think Eric Stolze took some risks with this story - from making our main character a blind, cranky old man, down to a werewolf clearly wearing a floppy suit - there is so much within Late Phases that could turn into a big, jokey mess if not handled skillfully. The possibility for trampling that fine, fine line between satire and just bad filmmaking is HUGE. In the end, I think the elements were navigated well enough to bring around an end result that feels somewhat flippant and satirical AND well-made. The acting really helps tip this one from "possible train wreck" over to "nice made indie flick."

Late Phases was really interesting to me on a couple of levels. The first thing that really struck me was the commentary on age because there have been so many recent horror movies that portray "aging" as "absolutely terrifying" (The Taking of Deborah Logan, etc.) and "disgusting." Late Phases, on the other hand, shows us a man aging gracefully - he's strong, he's loyal, he's got integrity, and he is willing to risk his life to save his neighbors - even if they are kind of shitty. He's also very lonely because getting old does mean losing the people you care about. I'd call this, "sad but real."

I also found it fairly bold that they basically lead with the werewolf right out of the gate instead of building up to the big reveal. The typical approach to a monster movie is to hint at the creature but not show the entire thing until just before the end of the movie, thus teasing the audience into sticking around and then giving them enough time to enjoy the beast before it is (either) destroyed or sneaks away (until next time...).  I think that actually moves Late Phases out of the "monster movie" category - in some respects - and changes the focus of the movie. Seeing the monster right off makes it just another character in the movie - not "the most important character." What I like about this approach is that is actually makes Nick Damici the focus of the movie (as he should be.) and makes the story about his personal journey which I think helps keep Late Phases from veering off into "low-budget bullshit world."

I also have to say - and I think my regular readers won't be surprised by this one either - that any time you chuck Tom Noonan into a movie, I'm sold. There's something so gloriously "off" about him.

Some other checks in the plus column for me:
  • Despite my previous jab, the practical effects are quite good
  • The gore factor is pretty high
  • The ending isn't explicitly happy
Check this one out if you're looking for something with a touch of humor and plenty of killing.

You can read some other Late Phases reviews here:

You can watch the Late Phases trailer here:

You can pick up a copy of Late Phases here:


Popular posts from this blog

Rebuttal: 17 Disturbing Horror Movies You Will Never Watch Again

When I'm not watching movies, I'm reading about movies. I stumble across all kinds of articles, blog posts, book excerpts, etc. in my quest to absorb as much movie knowledge as possible. Now, I'm snotty and loud-mouthed and opinionated but I'd never begrudge another human their opinion. Seriously. You're absolutely welcome to have any opinion about any thing you want. However, I must warn you, if I think your opinion is stupid, I'm absolutely going to say so. I've recently stumbled on an article completely  brimming with so many idiotic opinions that I'm actually compelled to craft a response. Here's the gist of the original article: there are some horror movies out there that are so disturbing , you'll only ever want to watch them once. I've have taken her original list and refuted her claims without pulling her entire article over. You can read the original article here . Let's start at the beginning, with her opening statement

Escape From Tomorrow

I love creative people who are willing to take risks with their art. I appreciate the refusal to do things by the rules. I'm also terribly impatient with mediocrity. Enter  Escape From Tomorrow . Created by a team of rogue filmmakers, the movie was shot in the video mode of high-end still cameras. Actors shared scripts and shooting locations across their smartphones. Shot on location at Disney World, the parks were completely unaware this was all going on right under their mouse ears. I wanted to love Escape From Tomorrow. More than that, I wanted to be completely taken with its ingenuity and creativity and - oh yes - its originality. And there is really a simple brilliance to their covert plan; all families are roaming around the parks, taking videos and chatting on their phones. Just blend the fuck in, act like you belong, and you won't get caught. Too bad the movie can be summed up as: ambitious but Rubbish. As you can imagine (or possibly know), there was a ton of con

What Is Genre And Why Should I Care?

There are terms that always seem to come up when talking about films: director, actor, plot, theme, score, etc. These terms are all self-explanatory; no one ever asks, ‘what’s a director?’ However, there are other terms that are equally common but less clear: genre, sub-genre, auteur, oeuvre, etc. These terms are more abstract then ‘director’ or ‘actor.’ It is entirely likely that someone will ask, ‘what is genre, anyway?’ This question specifically is what I will be answering with this paper. The answer to the question ‘what is genre,’ is multi-layered: genre is a means of classification. Genre is a means of communication. Genre is a means of understanding films. Genre is a means of relating to films. To one person all movies rated “PG” are a genre – possibly one also known as “children’s movies” – while to another all movies with similar topics treated in similar ways are a genre: i.e. movies dealing with frontier life depicted in a nostalgic manner are a genre often kn