Say what you will about it, but I quite admire the first film in the "ABCs of Death" franchise. With a wonderful high-concept premise and a wide variety of tonalities and styles to chose from, it was quite the fascinating little excursion into the insane and the insidious.
The series is of course based on a simple and elegant set-up... 26 filmmakers from all over the world are assigned a single letter from the English alphabet and are given free-reign to craft a short film based on a word beginning with that letter. The only stipulation? Horror and death must be a common theme amongst all entries. Thus, we are treated to a wide variety of filmmaking styles, ranging from the broadest of horror-comedies to the most sinister and twisted of torture and the macabre.
It's a brilliant idea. And indeed, I thought the original entry in the now three-part series was a wonderfully disturbing ode to the horror genre that I greatly admired and very much enjoyed. But sadly, for the most part I feel the second chapter falls a bit too flat for it to hit home with nearly the same class and quality as what came before. Is it a total loss? No, not really. But are there more misses than hits here? Abso-freaking-lutely!
The biggest problem I had is that there is a definite and very overt leaning towards dark comedy this time around... though none of the directors really seem to "get" what makes a dark horror-comedy work, with far too many of the films being little more than tactless, bland shock-comedy. So many of the films place so much emphasis on tacky gross-out gags that the whole experience starts to falter, and even the better entries that crop up now and again fail to elicit a genuine positive reaction as a result. You're dreading the next unfunny comedic bit too much to really appreciate the good entries that appear here and there. While I won't spoil their outcomes, entries like Jim Hosking's "G is for Grandad", Erik Matti's "I is for Invincible" and Todd Rohal's "P is for P-P-P- P SCARY!" are just painfully overlong jokes that far outstay their welcome and rely on the cheapest of pay-offs. Yes, there were some bizarre entries in the last film, and a few instances of unfunny gags... But not to this extent. I'd go so far as to call segment "G" one of the most shockingly unfunny films I've ever seen. Even with it going as far over-the-top as it did to try and get laugh out of you... I just stared blankly at the screen without any emotional response.
In my opinion, the film really doesn't pick up until the very end, with a one-two-three punch in the forms of entries X, Y and Z... by far the three strongest entries in the entire assembled work. Julien Maury and Alexandre Bustillo's "X is for Xylophone" is a genuinely disturbing portrait of a woman driven mad by the seemingly innocent actions of her young granddaughter. Soichi Umezawa's "Y is for Youth" is both wonderfully crazed but also genuinely quite tragic. And Chris Nash's "Z is for Zygote"... Oh, boy. I don't even wanna say anything to even hint at what it's about, but suffice to say... Mr. Nash has issues. And he puts them on-screen in one of the most gloriously disturbing displays of carnage I've seen in quite some time.
The sad thing is that the potential for a sprawling and exquisite franchise still exists with this premise. The idea is an intriguing one that affords near-limitless possibilities, and I'd love to see future follow-ups. Sadly, it just appears that "ABCs of Death 2" was too full of mis-steps to hit home with its full potential. My recommendation? Just fast-forward to the last three chapters. And maybe also give entries C, D, S and W a shot if you're feeling particularly charitable. But otherwise... skip the rest.
I give "ABCs of Death 2" an underwhelming 4 out of 10. There's too much to hate and not quite enough to like this time around.
The series is of course based on a simple and elegant set-up... 26 filmmakers from all over the world are assigned a single letter from the English alphabet and are given free-reign to craft a short film based on a word beginning with that letter. The only stipulation? Horror and death must be a common theme amongst all entries. Thus, we are treated to a wide variety of filmmaking styles, ranging from the broadest of horror-comedies to the most sinister and twisted of torture and the macabre.
It's a brilliant idea. And indeed, I thought the original entry in the now three-part series was a wonderfully disturbing ode to the horror genre that I greatly admired and very much enjoyed. But sadly, for the most part I feel the second chapter falls a bit too flat for it to hit home with nearly the same class and quality as what came before. Is it a total loss? No, not really. But are there more misses than hits here? Abso-freaking-lutely!
The biggest problem I had is that there is a definite and very overt leaning towards dark comedy this time around... though none of the directors really seem to "get" what makes a dark horror-comedy work, with far too many of the films being little more than tactless, bland shock-comedy. So many of the films place so much emphasis on tacky gross-out gags that the whole experience starts to falter, and even the better entries that crop up now and again fail to elicit a genuine positive reaction as a result. You're dreading the next unfunny comedic bit too much to really appreciate the good entries that appear here and there. While I won't spoil their outcomes, entries like Jim Hosking's "G is for Grandad", Erik Matti's "I is for Invincible" and Todd Rohal's "P is for P-P-P- P SCARY!" are just painfully overlong jokes that far outstay their welcome and rely on the cheapest of pay-offs. Yes, there were some bizarre entries in the last film, and a few instances of unfunny gags... But not to this extent. I'd go so far as to call segment "G" one of the most shockingly unfunny films I've ever seen. Even with it going as far over-the-top as it did to try and get laugh out of you... I just stared blankly at the screen without any emotional response.
In my opinion, the film really doesn't pick up until the very end, with a one-two-three punch in the forms of entries X, Y and Z... by far the three strongest entries in the entire assembled work. Julien Maury and Alexandre Bustillo's "X is for Xylophone" is a genuinely disturbing portrait of a woman driven mad by the seemingly innocent actions of her young granddaughter. Soichi Umezawa's "Y is for Youth" is both wonderfully crazed but also genuinely quite tragic. And Chris Nash's "Z is for Zygote"... Oh, boy. I don't even wanna say anything to even hint at what it's about, but suffice to say... Mr. Nash has issues. And he puts them on-screen in one of the most gloriously disturbing displays of carnage I've seen in quite some time.
The sad thing is that the potential for a sprawling and exquisite franchise still exists with this premise. The idea is an intriguing one that affords near-limitless possibilities, and I'd love to see future follow-ups. Sadly, it just appears that "ABCs of Death 2" was too full of mis-steps to hit home with its full potential. My recommendation? Just fast-forward to the last three chapters. And maybe also give entries C, D, S and W a shot if you're feeling particularly charitable. But otherwise... skip the rest.
I give "ABCs of Death 2" an underwhelming 4 out of 10. There's too much to hate and not quite enough to like this time around.