Film Filter: Off - The Call of the Cthulhu

Film Filter: Off- Yay for my awesome brother buying me not one, but TWO scary movies for Christmas!  This one was particularly intriguing as it was a more recent film (2005) that attempted to re-create a story in old fashioned silent film style.  Never having watched a silent film of any kind, I was interested to venture ahead.

Pros- This movie had a lot of things going in its favor.  Again, never having seen a silent film, I can only gauge its effectiveness from my inexperienced perspective.  I liked the minimalism in subtitles, as it really forced you to pay attention to the film to realize what is going on.  They didn't overdo it and spoon-feed you the entire plot, which was nice.

   This movie was filmed in Mythoscope, which seems to be a method of recording or editing recent film to make it look antiquated.  This was a nice homage to how movies would have been filmed in the 1920s.  Surprisingly, I didn't find it as distracting as I thought I would.

   Speaking of the whole throwback idea of the film, the acting, "special effects", makeup, and set design all felt very appropriate to the time period.  It was very interesting to me to think back to a time when movies were this drastically different.  I found myself asking very stupid questions with very obvious answers: "Why did they make silent films in the first place?" or "Why couldn't they just shoot this scene on an island?" were some of the gems I came out with,

   I have to give this movie props, as it was likely a very scary story back in its time.  It's hard to imagine, though, with the way we currently view and value horror flicks, that this was actually frightening to anyone.  I don't want my lack of knowledge of older silent films to cause me to slam this film as "lame" when I have nothing to compare it to, so I will just say that I thought the psychological/dreaming aspect was kind of neat, and felt to me to be the attempted "horror" in the film, as opposed to the monster itself.  I liked the ending, and thought it was a good indication that the aforementioned is true.

   I liked the score!  I'm obviously big on music in movies, and it was so fun to see music actually shaping and assisting with the story, as opposed to just being present for ominous parts, or foreshadowing.

   Lastly, no loopholes!  The one error I thought I caught (the lead character reading English text from a Swiss man's journal) was cleared up as the journal entrant did not want his wife to read it, so he chose to write in English to keep it a secret from her.  Well played. indeed.

Cons- In the beginning of the movie, the time period and perspective changed three or four times, and it was hard to keep up with.  Without modern luxuries like color and sound, those transitions weren't as seamless as they obviously would be today, which caused some brief confusion at times.

   Disregarding nuances that were clearly meant to be time-period relevant, I didn't find a lot of cons in this.  I didn't think the monster was super scary, and I thought they could have done more with less actual shots of it and more shadow shots.  A minor complaint, though, given the point of the film.

Wrap up- I didn't actually enjoy this film as much as I might've enjoyed others, but in retrospect I really think it did a solid job of telling the story in the desired fashion.  It's not a type of film I'm probably ever going to love, or seek out, but I'm really glad I got the opportunity to watch and review a silent horror.

HOME

Film Filter: Off - Red State

Film Filter: Off- I had passed this on Netflix many a time, so I figured I would finally sit down and watch it.  I have to say, I was surprised when I did.

Pros- This film definitely gets points for its originality.  I don't think I've ever seen, or heard of for that matter, another movie that is quite like this one.  It started out like a typical horror movie, but then went in a very different direction.

   Overall, I think the actors in the film did an admirable job, especially Michael Parks in the role of the minister.  John Goodman was a surprise in this film, and although his characterization was a little weak, he did the best he could with it.

   I think the idea of using a public religious controversy like the Westboro Baptist Church worked in this film's favor.  It's something that most audience members have likely heard of, whether or not they know a lot about it.  It definitely sheds some light on religious fanatics in a cult-like fashion, which is well received when it comes to horror films.

   One of the surprises I got out of this film was that it was directed by Kevin Smith.  After doing a little research, which I would strongly recommend if you're interested in Smith as a director, I found that this movie was not meant to be comedic, which is pretty evident when you watch it.  The description, along with Smith as director, leads you to believe otherwise, so it was an unexpected twist.  He also mentioned in an interview that there are little to no redeeming characters, which is also pretty evident when you watch the film.  This is also interesting, as it sort of breaks the mold of the traditional horror movie formula.

   The ending was pretty poignant.

Cons- I would be lying if I said that this was not a frustrating film to watch.  As previously mentioned, this movie breaks the standard formula, and as a result kills off some characters that shouldn't die, and prolongs the life of those that should.  You could argue that this is a brilliant strategy, as it lessens the predictability, but there was too much ungratified and unjustified instances of it that it turned me off.

Wrap up- I would recommend this film, based solely off its individuality.  It might not be my favorite, but it's different and eye opening.

HOME

Film Filter: Off - 6 Souls

Film Filter: Off- I was perusing Netflix for a good, scary Halloween flick, and most looked a little on the cheesy side.  This one, on the other hand, boasted Julianne Moore and an intriguing description, so I went for it.

Pros- I don't dislike Julianne Moore, but I am not her number one fan either.  She's just one of those actresses I don't pay a lot of attention to, but I will say she seems to play the estranged mother (The Forgotten, Carrie) very well.  This movie was no exception, and I really enjoyed her realistic banter and interactions with her brother and her father throughout the film.  She brought a believability to the film that really helped it along.
   As evidenced with my love of films like Primal Fear and The Exorcism of Emily Rose, I have the utmost respect for actors who have to portray more than one character in a film- who are usually very opposite each other in personality- and pull it off well.  Myers is an actor with which I have more recently noted, and he pulls this off impeccably, never once even speaking with his native Irish accent.  I was impressed, though shades of it came out every once in awhile, if you were listening carefully.
   One of the things that, retrospectively, I appreciated was the film's pacing.  There was a twist that not only wasn't revealed, but wasn't even alluded to until more than halfway through the film.  This minor shift not only sped up the timetable of the film's ending, but also changed the audience's perception on a few characters, as well as answer some questions that lacked clarity early on.  There is another twist at the end, which is slightly open-ended, but I don't nearly mind it as much as I thought I would, as it was smartly played out.

Cons- Maybe, just maybe, Moore might have better relationships with her on-screen offspring if she stuck around to raise them?  I can't really think of any moment where she and her daughter were on screen together where she wasn't picking her up from her brother's, or dropping her off with her father. This is all to study a case given to her by her father (who the film has us believe is a colleague, but not her boss) that she didn't want to take in the first place.  Le sigh.
   Despite the fact that this film is definitely dubbed more as a thriller than a horror flick, I think they could have done a little more to insert some aspects of good horror movies into it.  Pop-up moments were pretty few and far between, and were also highly predictable.  The little amount of gore in the film was also pretty clearly televised beforehand.  Chase scenes were a little anti-climactic and...you guessed it...predictable.  The movie wasn't bad because of this, don't get me wrong, but I think it definitely could have been enhanced with the use of it.  The scariest parts for me was when I was on the edge of my seat and my friend's dog barked because trick-or-treaters were at the house.  No bueno.

Wrap up- I was pleasantly surprised by this Netflix gem on Halloween, and I encourage any possession/multiple personality aficionados to check it out.

HOME

Film Filter: Off - The Last Will and Testament of Rosalind Leigh

Film Filter: Off-  This movie was suggested to me and was described as haunting and creepy, so naturally I figured I'd give it a shot.

Pros-  Firstly, this movie gets mad props for its ingenuity.  I have never witnessed a film quite like it, and it's likely that none similar to its style will be hitting theaters anytime soon.  That being said, therein lies room for some interpretive confusion, but it is still very unique and deserves credit for that.
   This movie doesn't appear to have been done on any sort of large budget, so I will also give it credit for being fiscally responsible, but also effective.  It didn't feel like a "low budget" film, although it likely was, so I appreciate the utilization of resources without overdoing it financially, as most films tend to do.
   I believe one could write a thesis paper on the symbolism present in this film.  Despite its often unclear direction, it is undeniable that this film definitely has some inconspicuous representations.  Along the same vein, the cinematography is brilliantly played out in this regard, as there are many scenes where Leon physically emulates the crazy statues and artwork that decorate the house.  It is also done ever so subtly, so there very well have been more than the two instances I observed.
   I feel like the staple of a quality movie is one that makes you think, and this one sometimes seems like it does nothing but that.  Taken to an extreme degree, which this movie may have done, this idea becomes a downer for movies trying to seem "too intellectual", but it is so refreshing to see something unique and different with films that one can almost overlook it.  Almost.

Cons-  One of the things that I hate in films is undeveloped characters or unfilled plot-points.  This movie has lots of both.  Who was the woman on the phone?  Are they dating?  Were they dating?  Why did his dad die?  What is with the cult?  These are just a handful of questions I found myself asking throughout the movie's tiny 82 minute package.  Some might argue that those points are irrelevant, to which I say pish posh.  If the relationship with his psychiatrist was irrelevant, why did they allude to one deeper than patient to doctor?  Not to expand upon it is almost a crime at that point.  It doesn't take four extra scenes to close up a minor story line, so it feels like they were more overlooked than they were intentionally dismissed.  Pending your interpretation of the film, however, an intentional dismissal may actually make sense.  Confusing?  You bet.
   So let's talk about what the eff this movie is about, because I had to do some serious research before I felt comfortable writing about this film.  The ending is about as wide open as the Grand Canyon, and I struggled to come up with any explanation for why the movie was ending the way it did.  At first, like most I assume, I was kind of perturbed as we are so often spoon-fed every bit and piece of the movies we watch and anything to the contrary seems torturous.  "Really, movie?  You're going to make me THINK to figure out this ending?  Damnit."  So, what does it mean?  I don't really want to give everything away, but there are two schools of thought that most people exhibit in regards to this film.  The first is that the concept of loneliness takes a physical shape and haunts Leon, Rosalind's son, while he is fixing to sell the house after her death.  The notion is that loneliness is what killed Rosalind, or at least acted as a catalyst in her death.  The second option is one of those "this is all in your head" endings in which this is all a fabrication of the ghost of Rosalind's imagination.  This, although being quite profound, unique, and poignant, doesn't make as much sense to me, as it would seem that she could control the outcome, which the movie showcases she clearly cannot.  I'm more inclined to believe the former of the two choices.
  Not so much a huge downfall, but the fact that religion is tied into this film (again pending your interpretation) is a bit more than misleading.  The film leads you to believe with every fiber of its being that this movie has something to do with religion and faith, which in a small way I guess it does.  It seems to me, though, that upon further inspection the angelic cult hobby could have just as easily been replaced with a knitting hobby and could have carried out the same feeling.  Of course, not maybe as clearly, as the point I feel is brought up is the lack of support Rosalind gets from her son because of her hobby.  Not too many young boys are hard-core anti-knitting, I suppose.  Regardless, the trickery of the illusion of religious ties is confusing and leads you in various directions.  As previously mentioned, though, depending on your thoughts on what the film makers were trying to accomplish, this might make perfect sense.  Who knows?

Wrap up- I love the idea of a film making you think, but there has to be a happy medium between that and a choose-your-own-adventure movie.  Maybe they didn't want to spoon-feed the audience, but you can't starve us either!  Despite the conflicting feelings I have, I strongly encourage you to watch this as it really does make you think.  A lot.  For a long time.  It's probably one of those films that could be behooved by watching it twice.

HOME

Film Filter: Off - The Ruins

Film Filter: Off- My fiance had read the book, and was intrigued by the thought of the movie, so we decided to give it a whirl.

Pros- Props to them for trying to make this film feel as realistic as it could.  Character interactions and situations were, for the most part, pretty believable.  Going off of this concept is the implementation of bad situations during the day time, which again, made the movie feel more real.  Especially in instances of a curse, where there is no tangible threat per se, it seems more believable that time of day or daylight wouldn't really be a factor.
   Visually, the setting was very picturesque, which you may think is irrelevant to a horror movie.  When characters are trapped in one location for nearly the whole movie experience, it's nice to have something pretty to look at.
   I really liked the ingenuity of the idea.  I don't think I've ever seen a movie quite like this one, and that is something in itself, as they garner some points for creativity.  Granted, it was a book first, so the movie can't take all the credit.

Cons- In general the timing and events in the story seemed a little rushed.  It's evident that, yes, they can't survive for much longer than a few days without food and water, but the events leading up to some of the death scenes seemed almost unnecessarily rushed and out of sequence.
   Although I haven't read the book, I have researched it a bit, and it seems that (not unlike many film adaptations) the movie deviated.  I found it interesting though, that with such a downer storyline already in place, that they opted for this moderately up-beat ending, as opposed to the downer ending in which the book resulted.  I also feel that some of the points in the movie that were brought up didn't necessarily have as much meaning or depth because of the lack of development.  Granted, movies don't have as much time as books to develop some of these ideas, but the viewers shouldn't be confused or misled for this reason alone.  The adaptation may require more tweaking, or removing some parts, and I would imagine it's probably got to be a tough call to decide where to draw the line in that regard.
   It's also interesting to me that they switched roles/genders in a lot of the fates of the characters.  My hypothesis is for sex appeal to have the girls featured more often, but part of me wonders if the movie might have been different (in a good way) if the right characters were in the right situations, from the book's perspective.



Wrap up- This film is not bad, and is definitely unique and interesting.  I have to put it in the "mildly forgettable" category, however, as it is just that.

HOME

Film Filter: Off - The Fourth Kind

Film Filter: Off- I had seen this movie in theaters when it was originally released, but I had forgotten a lot of what happened and wanted to refresh it before I blogged about it.  I do remember leaving the theater not being terribly impressed, but not remembering why, I figured I'd give it another go.

Pros- Let's start at the beginning, I guess.  The introduction is very appealing, I like the PSA style, with the eerie background, and Milla Jovovich delivers it very well, while keeping it open ended.  It was nice that the movie was wrapped up in the same manner, with the director giving input as well (who, I didn't realize the first time I saw it, was the interviewer as well)
   Since we're on the topic of Milla already, I will take this time to commend her on a job well done.  It's not easy to play a character who has so many emotions and dimensions, not to mention interactions with all kinds of people and, beings I guess.  She has to go from possessed-ish (I don't know what you would call an alien possession, is it still possession?), to a sweet loving mother, to a horrified wife, to a calm doctor and all the way back around again.  It has to be tiring, but she does the role justice.  I also liked the way the rest of the film was cast, as it made the film feel a bit more realistic.
   One of the scare tactics used in this film that isn't terribly common, thank God, is going from a straight black screen to a scary image.  This is absolutely contrasting, and when the silence erupts into the chaotic noises that ensue from the hypnosis sessions or memories, it is visually and mentally jarring. It is also very effective.
   I also liked that this film did not rely solely on fiction, as it was claimed at the beginning that these events were true, but also not totally on found footage or the appearance of it.  Instead, they used the "found footage" and compared it to the dramatic re-enactment.  They also did some clever things with the layout of the two screens to make it visually interesting when she was being interviewed at one point, which I thought was different and refreshing.

Cons- While this movie had a spooky introduction, and a rock solid beginning, it got more and more difficult to believe Dr. Tyler's story as it progressed.  The directors did an admirable job trying to get her not to appear nuts, but towards the end the crazy won over and I was left a little confused.  It was also confusing that the police officer was ready to arrest her without consulting ANY of the, oh, say 4 or 5 witnesses present for the hypnosis that resulted in paralysis.  That's just lazy, bad police work.  Abigail did a really good job standing up for herself too...all sobby and incoherent.  She should have stood up for herself and DEMANDED due process.  There was no evidence and she just kind of gave in.  I have to say I lost some respect for her there.
   Unfortunately, as eerie and thought provoking as this movie may be, it is not as based on true events and footage as it seems.  Upon further investigation, it seems that Dr. Tyler was either an alias, or didn't exist.  It also seems that the "real" Dr. Tyler (who isn't listed as an actress on the film or on IMDB) is an actress.  This movie was also not shot in Nome, Alaska (as they have little to no trees, apparently) and the lack of the label "actual footage" on the video tapes, when the label was present on the recordings, is misleading too.  Especially if "Dr. Tyler" isn't really "Dr. Tyler".  That knowledge being public would definitely discredit the footage, as it would have to have been shot with the actress.  Bummer.

Wrap Up: So, it wasn't real, big whoop.  There are plenty of fake scary movies that are still hella-entertaining, but it does piss me off a bit that this film is particularly misleading with their production.  I would recommend watching it, but definitely taking a lot of it with a big fat grain of salt.

HOME

Film Filter: Off - Zodiac

Film Filter: Off- Many times that I have visited IMDB to look up info or get a photo for a movie to put on my blog, the movie Zodiac came up underneath as "People who liked this also liked..."  I had thought about watching it for awhile, so when I saw that it was on Netflix I immediately pushed play.

Pros- For being as long as it was, it really didn't seem that long.  Maybe it's because I saw it over the span of two days, but I think I would have felt the same way had I watched it all in one fell swoop.  For some reason, it grabbed my attention from beginning to end, likely because it felt like one big Law & Order SVU episode.
   As I have stated many times, movies that are based on true events are more intriguing to me than those that aren't.  That doesn't mean that they're better, per se, as evidenced with the Alphabet Killer.  Similar to The Conjuring, though, I enjoyed looking up some of the research after I finished watching the movie.  Although this follows Robert Graysmith as he writes a novel about the Zodiac, it was interesting to read that there have been many books published on the subject, and MANY people have been suspected of the killings, not just one.
   One of the things I found interesting is the shift of focus on the three main protagonists in the film.  All three actors, Downey, Ruffalo, and Gyllenhaal, did a commendable job with their respective roles.  I love Robert Downey Jr., and I thought he not only portrayed the character well,  but also the evolution of an employed journalist to a drug and alcohol abusing sloth.  He played them both well, and the change in his character due to the obsession of the case was evident.  Gyllenhaal was cast perfectly, and Ruffalo did a good job as well.  Getting back to the shift of focus, usually three pretty big named actors "starring" in a film have to share the screen time, so one is more secondary than the other.  Due to the film being so long, and to the story taking place over decades, each one got a pretty decent amount of screen time.  Downey controlled the beginning part of the film, with Gyllenhaal's help, and Ruffalo commanded most of the middle, while Gyllenhaal took over from there to the ending.  It was interesting to see three different perspectives and approaches to the crime.
   Lastly, one of the minor things that I really enjoyed was the steps taken to make the movie feel realistic.  From the scenery, to the automobiles and wardrobe, to the documents with typos from the typewriter, every attempt was made to make this film feel like it took place in the late 1960's and 1970's.

Cons- First and foremost, this movie should not really be classified as a horror flick.  Although there are elements that are present in the movie that appear to be of this genre, it's really more of a murder-mystery/thriller.  For those that are looking for a scary movie, don't push play.  If you're looking for something thought provoking, it might be more up your alley.
   One of the things I found annoying was the lack of addressing Gyllenhaal's wife or their marital problems.  Now, yes, I know that this was not designed to be the focus of the film, but it was clear that there were issues going on.  As a side note, I loved the part where she had an envelope for him, and it wasn't the expected divorce papers.  It just felt disjointed to me that Gyllenhaal's character puts their family safety "first" but is so obsessed that it's really all just talk.  That seems to be how the real story goes though, so there's not really a lot I can contend with.
   The murder scenes were all really awkward.  The dialogue always felt forced, and it was shocking to me that NO ONE knew better than to: stare at someone clearly stalking you, pull over while someone behind you is flashing their lights/honking, etc.
   P.S.- Speaking of the woman that nearly got killed in the car with him...why did NO ONE think to interview her?  She sat right next to him and had a conversation with him.  Unless I missed something that dismissed that scenario as not being the Zodiac killer, I feel like that's a pretty clear path to try to take in solving the investigation.

Wrap up- This movie is a complicated one to review, for sure.  It wasn't a bad movie, but it also wasn't scary.

HOME

Film Filter: Off - House at the End of the Street

Film Filter: Off- I hadn't heard much, or anything really, about this film.  After watching The Hunger Games and Silver Linings Playbook, and then making the connection that Jennifer Lawrence had done a scary movie, it was done.  I had to see it- good, bad, or indifferent.

Pros- I really like Jennifer Lawrence, and this movie certainly didn't make me feel otherwise.  I felt, unlike a lot of scary movies, she portrayed how a teen would talk and act: with lots of eye rolls and personality.  The relationship her character, Elissa, had with her mother also felt realistic, including lots of teen angst and resentment, along with some amicable, low-key scenes thrown in.  The leading male, Max Thieriot, was impossible not to fall in love with.  He was so stinking cute, but also pathetic in many ways.  It was easy to see why Elissa had a hard time keeping her hands off.
   In terms of the plot, I thought it was almost flawlessly executed.  The ability of the movie to portray Tyler and Carrie Anne as the antagonists, with Elissa and Ryan as the protagonists worked beautifully. I really don't want to give away too much of the ending on this one, so I'll keep my mouth shut, but I will say that I expected this movie to be like Silent House, or Last House on the Left, but I can assure you it goes much deeper than that.  The movie does an excellent job of letting you develop actual feelings for the characters, before they pull the rug out from underneath you.  Many times, this drastic change in environment happens much too soon, and the audience hasn't had enough time to get to know, let alone empathize with the characters.  Most of this movie doesn't even feel like a scary movie, because of its attention to personal relationships.
   The ending is great.

Cons- I didn't really have any, but if I had to pick one it would be the same pet peeve I have with all scary movies of this nature: don't go near the house where people were murdered.  It's generally not a good idea.

Wrap up- I was so pleasantly surprised with this film.  I found myself enjoying it more so than I analyzed it, which doesn't happen often enough.

HOME

Film Filter: Off - The Conjuring

Film Filter: Off- I believe I had seen this movie advertised as a  preview before watching the Evil Dead, and I knew I wanted to see it.  Despite the fact that the plot has been used time and time again it looked promising and, well, there's only one way to find out if it is.

Pros- I have to hand it to the actors, as they all did an admirable job.  I especially liked Vera Farmiga's character, and her innate likability.  She portrayed a nurturing mother character very well, and the relationship with her on-screen husband, Patrick Warren, was very believable.  Patrick is no amateur when it comes to horror flicks either, as he can be seen in Insidious, and its sequel which is set to come out next month.  I thought Lili Taylor also did a great job in a difficult role, having to be both incredibly nurturing and possessed.
   One of the things I thoroughly enjoyed was the dual stories being conveyed at the same time.  While, yes, this plot is overdone, it was refreshed by the fact that the story is being told from two perspectives. Interestingly, I found myself more interested in the storyline focused around the Warrens, who are ghost hunters, than I did the Perrons, who was the family being haunted.
   It never hurts to have a scary movie that is "based on a true story", and this one seems to be a bit more legit than the rest.  I would encourage anyone who has seen this film to visit Ed and Lorraine Warren's website to get some deeper information regarding some of the tales found in the film.
   In terms of the movie itself, I can't say I have screamed out loud in a theater so many times since The Woman In Black.  This film has some great uses with pop-out moments, that really scare the bejeezus out of you!  I had successfully shrieked, flailed, spilled, soda, and kicked the poor person in front of me by the time the movie had ended.  That's a pretty decent analysis of its effectiveness right there, above and beyond the verbal praise given to the film.  The movie was well structured, there was enough information left open to keep you interested, and the pacing felt pretty standard.

Cons- The movie itself didn't have a lot of cons.  The only thing I found myself really wondering was why the Warrens kept all of the possessed items they have collected throughout the years in a room in their house...with their young daughter.  I don't care how many times you mention to a kid NOT to enter a room, they're still going to want to.  In fact, they're likely to want to even more, now that they know it is forbidden.  I just feel like that's a pretty big gamble to have just sitting in your house behind a (sometimes) locked door.  And, couldn't at any point one of the spirits decide to unlock the door?  I don't know, I guess they have a pretty good amount of control over the situation, but it seems a little inconsistent to me.  It's safe enough to keep in your house, but so dangerous you can't touch anything.
   P.S.- I think I, and everyone in the theater, wanted to know what Lorraine saw.  For real.

Wrap up- This is an excellent movie, with some really scary moments, and an interesting and slightly unique plot.  I would highly recommend it.

HOME

Film Filter: Off - World War Z

Film Filter: Off-  This movie received rave reviews, and I couldn't stop hearing about it.  I was obviously really pumped to go and see it, as did many, since the theater was sold out.

Pros- Having Brad Pitt as the leading man never really hurt a film, in my opinion.  It's always important to have a strong actor when you're trying to put together a movie where there is limited interaction between the lead actor and other human beings.  Much like Castaway and I Am Legend, the actors need to rely on themselves and their abilities to make the film work, as they have few counterparts, and I think Brad Pitt does a pretty good job of keeping the film together.
   I really liked that there weren't a lot of other A list actors involved, especially in regards to his wife.  I thought Mireille Enos did a great job as his wife, and I don't think a stereotypical supermodel A list actress could have done it as well.  Who knows, but I liked her in the role.
   I thought the pacing and evolution of Brad Pitt's character's ability to figure out what was going on was well executed.  There was enough information to keep you interested, but enough information missing to keep you invested in the plot of the film.
   The zombies were interesting, as they moved quickly, and not at a stereotypically crawling pace.  It definitely added a new dimension to the idea of zombie attacks, similar to that of  28 Days Later.
   The special effects were good, and certainly added to the movie.  It's hard to do a zombie movie of this magnitude without using special effects, and I feel they utilized them wisely.  Also, on an unrelated note, there was a surprise death at the beginning that I found highly unexpected and effective to the plot.

Cons- Ok, there were a few discrepancies here and there that I feel were deliberately overlooked for cinematic appeal.  One of particular note was the dramatic "inject-yourself-with-a-random-disease" scene.  He could have easily written a sign saying "ring the phone when I have the right one" and held the vials up to the camera.  Problem solved.
   Despite the fact that the zombies were different from their depiction in the majority of films, I'm not sure I, or the rest of the audience, really responded appropriately to the zombies when we got to interact with them one on one.  The whole teeth clicking and head pounding were highly amusing and the audience laughed several times.  I'm not sure if that was the intention of the scenes, but I feel like it wasn't.  Perhaps I'm wrong.
   Lastly, and most annoyingly so, this movie is about an 86% rip off of I Am Legend.  Now, before you jump down my throat by saying, "Well Corri, World War Z was a 2006 novel that came out before the movie AND before I Am Legend which wasn't released until 2007."  Yes, this is true, but I Am Legend was ALSO a book, and was written in 1954, so, boo yah.  I know a lot of people hate on I Am Legend and Will Smith, and say World War Z was a much better film, but there's something to be said about the emotional attachment garnered in I Am Legend that just isn't there in World War Z.  Hell, I watched it a few weeks back and I barely remember enough of it to be able to blog about it, not because it was a bad movie, but because it was forgettable.  I Am Legend at least had emotional connections that were deepened because of a great loss, as opposed to a happy go lucky we all live to see each other ending found in World War Z.  Maybe I am just biased, but since Will Smith's movie came out first, and I am partial to it I have to give this round to I Am Legend, and call World War Z out for what it is: a copycat.

HOME

Film Filter: Off - Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters

Film Filter: Off- I had chalked this film up to being as close to the bottom of the barrel as possible before I pushed play, but I have to say that (given my extraordinarily low expectations) it surpassed my initial judgment.

Pros- First off, it was produced by Will Ferrell.  It went like this, (about 2 minutes into the opening credits) "Woah, rewind that." "Why?" "Just do it."  "Ok."  "See, I was right!  Will Ferrell!"  That may seem trivial, but I will say that knowing that he had a hand in the production shed a lot of light on the film and some of its idiosyncrasies.
   Speaking of the opening credits, I thought they were very well executed (pun intended).  They creatively and effectively laid out the main idea of the story while also moving the credits along.  It was a small victory, but it did not go unnoticed.
   Although there were parts that felt a wee bit contrived, I have to say that unlike most films, the dialogue felt natural and most of the character relationships worked well too.  That being said, none of the above were appropriate for the time period of the film, but if the intent was a modernized tone in an antiquated setting, we have a winner.  If not, well, better luck next time, Ron Burgundy.
   The pacing of this film was nearly flawless.  It gave enough background information to allow the story to have a reference point, and that back story was alluded to many times throughout the film as well.  The movie also did a good job of mixing the action with the plot; it interchanged between the two pretty evenly.
   Lastly, they took a well known story and innovated it brilliantly.  Perhaps there were nuances that were not preferred by some audiences, but it can't be denied that the strategy of taking a fairy tale classic and retelling it with the victims as badass heroes is a unique, and fun take to witness on-screen.  Sure, there were definitely moments of predictability and cheesiness, but this movie was refreshing in its ability to recreate a story without boring us to tears.
   Oh, did I mention Famke Jensen?  Rawwr.

Cons-
   Despite being horribly cute and formidably badass, the poor-man's-Rachel-Weisz of a lead actress got kind of annoying.  She was too confrontational, which definitely ended up getting her into trouble.  As tough as she was, she attempted to take on a pack of 5 or 6 pissed off grown men and she had no weapon.  To top it all off, she bites the sheriff's nose as he's trying to talk to her.  Granted, the guy was a total douchebag, but an intelligent young woman would have tried to coax her way out, then fight them off., not just flail around uncontrollably with no plan.  Tsk, tsk.
   My next annoyance is the lack of accountability of Hansel.  She was getting the shit kicked out of her, was nearly sexually assaulted while Hansel is...banging some hot witch in a pond.  Real brotherly love, right there.  Moreover, when they finally meet up again, she never asks where we was.  Lucky for him, I guess, since she probably would have bitten his nose off too if she knew the truth.
   The last con I have is more of an overlying theme.  There is almost an unnecessary amount of f bombs dropped in this movie, which is fine when in the right context.  In this film, however, they appear amidst a sea of corny, predictable, one liners.  Ewww.  Curse words are like plastic surgery; if they won't enhance what's already there, they are pointless.

Wrap up- This movie leaves no loose ends, has a lot of action, and adds ingenuity to a story we all love to hate.  It not only ties up its own loose ends, but those of the original fairy tale as well.  As long as you don't take this film any more seriously than you would take a Will Ferrell movie, I think you're in for a treat.

HOME  

Film Filter: Off - Evil Dead

Film Filter: Off  So I was waiting diligently for this film to come out, and I even went so far as to watch the original (which I'm embarrassed to admit, I don't do often enough) before I went to the theater.  Needless to say, after watching the trailer and hearing all the hype, I was pretty stoked to see this movie.

Pros- This film followed the plot of the original pretty closely, which I consider a good thing.  There is definitely a difference between a re-make, a re-telling, and a sequel, and it's pretty clear that this is a solid re-make, with some dollops of ingenuity thrown in as well.
   I can't really say a whole lot about the actors, as it doesn't really take a lot of strong ability to portray frightened adolescents, however I will say that they were very well cast for their roles.  Each character had their own little niche that they fit into to make up the story, and some of them even had to act possessed and be psychotic, which I assume would be pretty hard on its own.  Add into the equation that they must also go back and forth between said possessed state and their normal character state and then you get a decently challenging role.
   This movie, based on previews, appears to be 90% gore.  Surprisingly, despite the fact that there is almost a sufferable amount of blood, it is fairly evenly balanced with other scare tactics as well.  The build up to all of the gory scenes was fantastic, comparable to some scenes in Sinister where you KNEW something was going to happen, but it scared you anyway.  Those are pretty magic moments, right thurr.  They also have a good, though slightly over the top, system of incorporating music into the film. Again, like most horror flicks, it strongly foreshadowed an event, but if that's something that bothered you immensely, than maybe scary movies aren't your thing and you should check out some rom coms.
   One of the things this movie does well that separates itself from the pack is its ability to show the un-showable.  Some movies go there, but the vast majority leave you with the individual parts to piece together the grotesque moment ahead, and let your imagination fill in the gaps.  This film does not, it's pretty much all right there on the table for you to see.  The jury's still out on if it made the film better, but the movie certainly gets points for being ballsy.
   Holy intro.  I watched a pretty unsettling preview (The Conjuring...pretty stoked to see that one!) and felt relieved when the movie actually started, since I knew the plot would work its way into the scary parts and not start with them.  Wrong.  It did a throwback to a much older time period, which did two things 1) set the movie up with some background info, and 2) be delightfully unpredictable for those of us expecting the beginning to mirror that of the original film.  Genius!
   Lastly, as I could probably go on, this movie refreshed my faith in re-makes, as there are some pitiful excuses for them out there.  It did not derail itself form the original, but instead added very important background information, refreshed plot points to make them applicable to modern day while also furthering the story in a believable way, and filled in gaps in the story line.  Sure, it was quite different in parts, but the story is pretty much the same thing with a more modern feel, which is how good remakes should be.  That being said, there is a time, place, and reason for a remake, and not every horror movie made circa 1980 needs to have a makeover.  There's a lot to be said for antiquated horror, and we also have to remember that, at the time, some of those movies were the best of the genre.

Cons- Other than slightly over-the-top musical excerpts, and some slight inconsistencies with the storyline, I really didn't have any cons.

Wrap up: If you're not interested in blood and gore, this movie is most definitely not for you.  If you can stomach the gross parts (which is more than half the movie) then I highly recommend it.

HOME

Film Filter: Off - The Raven

Film Filter: Off- I can remember watching a preview for this movie, and being intrigued.  Much like The Woman in Black, this is a period horror flick that depicts a less chaotic time in regards to technology and resources.  Unlike other "based on true events" films, this one almost necessitated some research, as it is about a historical, dark writer that nearly everyone is familiar with.  For my own personal satisfaction, I needed to know the lines between fact and fiction, and if you have watched, or will watch this film, I would encourage you to do the same.

Pros- It's pretty near impossible to do a Poe story in modern times, but the time period the film takes place is definitely critical to the film's pace, and ultimately resolve.  Those unhappy with the speed of the plot I think forget that we are witnessing a time period void of any modern technology.  Every discovery and communication is thus slowed down to a believable degree to, in my opinion, enhance the films believed authenticity.  Did it make it an edge of your seat thrill ride?  No, but if that's what you're looking for you should have done a little research before you jumped into this movie.
   The jury is still out for me on whether or not I am in love with John Cusack as Poe.  I really do like Cusack as an actor, but there's something I can't put my finger on regarding his performance.  Granted, I think he did as good a job as one could do with Poe, but I'm not sure the director found the best balance for the direction of Poe's character.  I could be way off base, but he seemed a little quirky and antagonizing, but almost in a teasing manner.  It could just be my perception, but I just viewed Poe a lot more serious than I think was portrayed in this film.  Despite those notions, I really loved the pompous nature of Poe that was portrayed, along with his poetic and articulate line deliveries that made him look more intelligent than those he kept company with, which is why Cusack ultimately goes as a pro.
   After having looked up a lot about Poe and his death, it made me appreciate the fine line this film tread in regards to fact v. fiction.  It was pretty obvious when things were made up for cinematic reasons a lot of the time, but I really like the idea of taking a historical figure's untimely, and mysterious death, and creating a fictionalized account of what could have happened to yield the result.  It's almost like writing a story with the ending first.

Cons- One of the big issues I had with this story was with the intermittent unbelievable moments.  Unlike The Woman in Black, where we're dealing with supernatural beings out of our control, this movie is clearly dealing with supposed real life scenarios.  Since the film does a very nice job of making 90% of what's going on feel realistic, the 10% of scenarios where it doesn't feel that way stand out.  For example, the killer standing on the roof jumping down onto a police officer and slitting his throat as he pounces on him.  I mean, his feet aren't even on the ground when he cuts him!  It's just slightly fantastical, and I didn't really buy it.  Or when the bricks are slightly different colored, which tells us the killer recently replaced old bricks with new ones when he hid the body inside.  I didn't go to brick laying school, but I'm pretty sure that process would have taken a reeeaally long time, and the mortar wouldn't have dried and looked like the same mortar that the old bricks used.

Wrap up- I didn't think this movie was half bad, although there were a sprinkling of things I didn't enjoy or that I disagreed with.  If you're into period thrillers or like dark historical horror movies, you would enjoy this.  If you are a die hard Poe fan looking for 100% accuracy, this probably isn't for you.

HOME