Film Filter: Off- So I had literally heard about this movie the mere day before I had seen it. It had come highly recommended, so I figured why not watch it. I was a little apprehensive to see Radcliffe in his first real breakaway role from Harry Potter, but the movie certainly did not disappoint.
Pros- To properly portray this type of film, you need a very strong lead actor, which I'm happy to say they received with Radcliffe. This is the type of introspective first person thriller not unlike I am Legend or Castaway, where the lead character spends most of their time alone and must captivate our interest through a majority of silence. Again, Radcliffe delivers.
I am also very enamored with the time period in the film, the late 1800s early 1900s. I think most horror films try to make themselves look realistic, so the obvious ploy would be to set the story in a modern day time period to make it feel more "real". After watching this film, however, I would argue the opposite to be true. Without the modern technological marvels of cell phones, laptops, vehicles, and electricity, characters in a scene are more vulnerable and don't have an easy way out of the situation. It's a much more frightening thought to be without the ability to communicate with anyone and to feel totally alone and helpless. Although modern age scary movies try to attempt this concept with power outages, no reception, flat tires, and dead batteries, I find it a little less extreme of a situation when they have the resources for instant communication and they become rendered useless, than when those resources are not available at all because they do not exist yet.
Something I found I had a love/hate relationship with about this film was its lack of "dead giveaway" music. Being a musician, I always tend to listen for the background music in a critical part of the plot so I can hear the climactic part and expect what's going to pop out and scare me. It's sort of an unwritten rule that this happens in horror movies, and even when the music cuts out to try to fool you and they scare you anyway, there's some type of predictability. This film does NOT utilize background music, pretty much ever. Therefore each moment feels more like real time and the audience finds themselves literally on the edge of their seat in suspense, as anything could happen at any moment. Pretty effective, I'd say, as I jumped out of my seat no less than three times.
Oh, how ever so slowly we received all the pieces to this mysterious puzzle, which is an extremely effective way of putting a story together. It was pretty much perfect timing because as soon as things felt like they might begin to drag, we got a new piece of information to work with, and we continued to receive more and more pieces to that puzzle up until the very end. Excellent work, yet again.
Cons- I don't have many for this film, but one that I heard from many people was that "it was too much screaming in your face". Okay, this is a valid point, but can we rationalize why we go to scary movies in a theater? It's to see if how frightened we can become. From an analytical standpoint did the creepy images, screaming faces, and pop-up moments become redundant? Yes. But did they also scare the pants off of most people in the theater? Yes. It's all about give and take, people.
One of my most common complaints regarding this genre of film is the stupidity of the main character in their attempts to investigate clearly unsafe circumstances. This film is no exception, however we see that Radcliffe's character is a saddened, yet compassionate man who is constantly out to make the world a better place. I think we're to assume he's trying to see if someone is hurt, or in trouble, but come on Dan- you're in a haunted house with the CREEPIEST of CREEPY dolls in the upstairs room. Use your head. You can also argue that, should he have known there were terrible things happening in the loud rooms he investigates, he really can't leave the house, so he might as well go up there and face it rather than become surprised later.
Wrap up- If there's a movie that I've reviewed that I could recommend the MOST it would by far be this one. I think it delivers an almost flawless recipe for horror, and leaves you constantly on the edge of your seat, wanting to know more about what's going on until the very end. Very well done, Potter.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Monday, January 16, 2012
Film Filter: Off- 11-11-11
Film Filter: Off- Ummmm, wow. Apocalypse movies have a funny way of looking profound and intriguing when they're really not, eh?
Pros- I'm reaaaaaallllly reaching here. Let's see...it was nice that the mother threw out the molasses cookies for the reasoning that she didn't want her son to consume an unnecessary amount of sugar early in the morning. That's about all of the positivity this movie mustered. I guess I can give props for symbolism, albeit really forced, obvious symbolism.
Cons- I don't even know where to begin. How about how stupid the father is? He doesn't keep a very vigilant eye on his kid, first of all. He also doesn't seem to notice that there are piles of bodies stacking up in his backyard either. His deranged babysitter keeps giving his son Nathan a stupid book on the symbolic meaning of the number 11, and instead of destroying it, he keeps throwing it out...in the same garbage can. Oh, and he doesn't fire her OR inquire as to why she might be reading him a morbid, sadistic book either. Lastly, he witnesses his son stab his wife, so he rescues his son from his crazy neighbor and then leaves his son alone with his wife in the house? I bet that's not going to end well.
Next, can we just take a brief moment and talk about BAD ACTING. Especially on the kid's behalf. Call up Dakota Fanning for a play-date; she can give you some pointers as to how to not suck as a child actor.
In terms of plot, this movie is about as well put together and interesting as a geriatric chess match. There is not really any in depth background information as to why this is going on and who the eff the people are that are so concerned about him. An interesting, although stupid, twist is that MOST of the people surrounding themselves with Nathan's well-being are crazy devil worshippers, and not holy people trying to inhibit the transformation process. Wouldn't you think, as with most apocalyptic movies, there would be some Vatican members, priests, or spiritual warriors trying to prevent this from happening? Nope, the directors instead sought out the crazy old cat lady next door as their only ambassador. Excellent choice.
Lastly, this movie is not only the antithesis of good, but also of scary. Not just because it's dumb, either. There is not one genuinely horrific, frightening, grotesque, or shocking aspect of this film. Other than the fact that it was made.
Wrap up- Please don't watch this...unless you have a fetish for constantly checking your Netflix movie progress to see how much of your life you have left to waste on this film.
Pros- I'm reaaaaaallllly reaching here. Let's see...it was nice that the mother threw out the molasses cookies for the reasoning that she didn't want her son to consume an unnecessary amount of sugar early in the morning. That's about all of the positivity this movie mustered. I guess I can give props for symbolism, albeit really forced, obvious symbolism.
Cons- I don't even know where to begin. How about how stupid the father is? He doesn't keep a very vigilant eye on his kid, first of all. He also doesn't seem to notice that there are piles of bodies stacking up in his backyard either. His deranged babysitter keeps giving his son Nathan a stupid book on the symbolic meaning of the number 11, and instead of destroying it, he keeps throwing it out...in the same garbage can. Oh, and he doesn't fire her OR inquire as to why she might be reading him a morbid, sadistic book either. Lastly, he witnesses his son stab his wife, so he rescues his son from his crazy neighbor and then leaves his son alone with his wife in the house? I bet that's not going to end well.
Next, can we just take a brief moment and talk about BAD ACTING. Especially on the kid's behalf. Call up Dakota Fanning for a play-date; she can give you some pointers as to how to not suck as a child actor.
In terms of plot, this movie is about as well put together and interesting as a geriatric chess match. There is not really any in depth background information as to why this is going on and who the eff the people are that are so concerned about him. An interesting, although stupid, twist is that MOST of the people surrounding themselves with Nathan's well-being are crazy devil worshippers, and not holy people trying to inhibit the transformation process. Wouldn't you think, as with most apocalyptic movies, there would be some Vatican members, priests, or spiritual warriors trying to prevent this from happening? Nope, the directors instead sought out the crazy old cat lady next door as their only ambassador. Excellent choice.
Lastly, this movie is not only the antithesis of good, but also of scary. Not just because it's dumb, either. There is not one genuinely horrific, frightening, grotesque, or shocking aspect of this film. Other than the fact that it was made.
Wrap up- Please don't watch this...unless you have a fetish for constantly checking your Netflix movie progress to see how much of your life you have left to waste on this film.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Film Filter: Off- Tucker and Dale vs. Evil
Film Filter: Off- After checking out a top 10 list of highly rated horror films, I ran across this one at the top. Not having seen it, and never having heard of it, I figured I should check it out. Needless to say, I'm glad I did.
Pros- One of the most attractive parts of this film is how unique it is. It doesn't take itself too seriously, and is more of a comedic horror film than one intended to induce fear. In addition to the different spin on the genre, is the perspective that the film takes. Instead of looking through the eyes of the victims, the viewer is seeing the film from the point of view of the suspected antagonists.
Another one of the things that was appealing about this film was the mockery it made of the stereotypical, preppy, college victims that are prevalent in so many horror flicks. It showcased quite a few of the cliche personalities: the dumb bitch, the compassionate girl, the sensible one who just wants to get the f#%@ out of there, and the gung-ho, testosterone filled hero who wants a showdown with the killer, just to name a few.
Lastly, the most memorable positive attribute of the movie is the chronic "wrong place wrong time" scenarios that ensue, causing Tucker and Dale to appear to be menacing serial killers. Even in the beginning of the film they are portrayed to be reclusive, mysterious hillbillies who look dangerous. It isn't until after about a good 20 minutes or so that the audience realizes they are kind-hearted, lovable guys who wouldn't (and couldn't) hurt a fly. It's sort of like the musical Wicked, in that the stereotypical villain gets to share their side of the story. Quite a clever concept, and very funny at that.
Cons- Well, one con is if you're looking for a horror movie. Although this film has elements often found in scary films, it certainly shouldn't be classified as one.
Although this film, as previously stated, is definitely not meant to be taken seriously, I can't be a movie analyst without pointing out some things that are frustrating. For example, when Tucker and Dale are taking care of Allison, the level of communication gets very skewed between them and the college kids. Granted, Tucker and Dale are certainly not rocket scientists, but they'd probably at least have sense enough to know that it looks like they abducted her, instead of trying to help her.
Wrap up- All in all, this movie is very entertaining, especially if you're into comedy. The movie in itself is also pretty well done (with the exception of some poor acting that I deem is most likely deliberate) and also has a sort of sweet moral to it. The feel of it is generally a mix of the aspect of everything going wrong in Meet the Parents with the humorous, gory nature of Shaun of the Dead. Definitely a good movie to watch with friends.
Pros- One of the most attractive parts of this film is how unique it is. It doesn't take itself too seriously, and is more of a comedic horror film than one intended to induce fear. In addition to the different spin on the genre, is the perspective that the film takes. Instead of looking through the eyes of the victims, the viewer is seeing the film from the point of view of the suspected antagonists.
Another one of the things that was appealing about this film was the mockery it made of the stereotypical, preppy, college victims that are prevalent in so many horror flicks. It showcased quite a few of the cliche personalities: the dumb bitch, the compassionate girl, the sensible one who just wants to get the f#%@ out of there, and the gung-ho, testosterone filled hero who wants a showdown with the killer, just to name a few.
Lastly, the most memorable positive attribute of the movie is the chronic "wrong place wrong time" scenarios that ensue, causing Tucker and Dale to appear to be menacing serial killers. Even in the beginning of the film they are portrayed to be reclusive, mysterious hillbillies who look dangerous. It isn't until after about a good 20 minutes or so that the audience realizes they are kind-hearted, lovable guys who wouldn't (and couldn't) hurt a fly. It's sort of like the musical Wicked, in that the stereotypical villain gets to share their side of the story. Quite a clever concept, and very funny at that.
Cons- Well, one con is if you're looking for a horror movie. Although this film has elements often found in scary films, it certainly shouldn't be classified as one.
Although this film, as previously stated, is definitely not meant to be taken seriously, I can't be a movie analyst without pointing out some things that are frustrating. For example, when Tucker and Dale are taking care of Allison, the level of communication gets very skewed between them and the college kids. Granted, Tucker and Dale are certainly not rocket scientists, but they'd probably at least have sense enough to know that it looks like they abducted her, instead of trying to help her.
Wrap up- All in all, this movie is very entertaining, especially if you're into comedy. The movie in itself is also pretty well done (with the exception of some poor acting that I deem is most likely deliberate) and also has a sort of sweet moral to it. The feel of it is generally a mix of the aspect of everything going wrong in Meet the Parents with the humorous, gory nature of Shaun of the Dead. Definitely a good movie to watch with friends.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Film Filter:Off - Fright Night
Film Filter: Off- So I had mixed feelings about this movie before I watched it, as I had been waiting for months to see it. Hoping that I didn't build it up for myself too much, I finally got the opportunity when my ridiculously cool brother bought it for me for Christmas.
Pros- Well, Colin Farrell, for one. I had always thought he was good looking, but there's something about his role in this film that made him sexy as all hell, no pun intended. He did a really great job playing the lustful, charming, invincible antagonist that women just can't say "no" to. It wasn't just his good looks that accomplished that, though. His mannerisms, the dramatic pauses he took in his dialogue, and his facial expressions all embodied the role perfectly; it got to the point where I found myself believing no one else could have played the role better, and that's a good feeling to have when you're reviewing a film.
I also liked that the film didn't have an overtly serious tone about it. It mixed in a good amount of humor, which helped diversify the film a bit and lighten it up considerably. It also made a nice recipe to invite Christopher Mintz-Plasse (McLovin') into the cast for some hilarious comic relief as well.
I thought most of the acting was well done although, with the exception of Farrell's character, most of the other character personalities were pretty watered down and straightforward.
Cons- First off, it was a bit confusing to the average, run of the mill viewer why the vampire features changed so much. Sometimes he would maintain his human features, whereas other times his face would drastically change. I don't claim to know enough about vampiric history to automatically know why that would happen, and I'm willing to assume most viewers would also fall into this category. Feeding versus attacking was one theory I heard, but either way, the movie didn't really go into any detail about it, which was sometimes frustrating.
Also frustrating was Charlie's relationship with his so-called best friend, Ed. Apparently Charlie is sort of popular now that he's dating Amy, so his relationship with his old friend seems a little turbulent. I understand teen drama, and that they could potentially be having a falling out, but when Ed points out that their other friend, Adam, has gone missing, Charlie seems to not really give a shit. Even though Ed was spouting off seemingly nonsensical evidence about vampires, Charlie should have still acknowledged the fact that his friend was MIA, regardless of the circumstances.
Wrap up: This movie is very entertaining and quite funny. Definitely worth seeing.
Pros- Well, Colin Farrell, for one. I had always thought he was good looking, but there's something about his role in this film that made him sexy as all hell, no pun intended. He did a really great job playing the lustful, charming, invincible antagonist that women just can't say "no" to. It wasn't just his good looks that accomplished that, though. His mannerisms, the dramatic pauses he took in his dialogue, and his facial expressions all embodied the role perfectly; it got to the point where I found myself believing no one else could have played the role better, and that's a good feeling to have when you're reviewing a film.
I also liked that the film didn't have an overtly serious tone about it. It mixed in a good amount of humor, which helped diversify the film a bit and lighten it up considerably. It also made a nice recipe to invite Christopher Mintz-Plasse (McLovin') into the cast for some hilarious comic relief as well.
I thought most of the acting was well done although, with the exception of Farrell's character, most of the other character personalities were pretty watered down and straightforward.
Cons- First off, it was a bit confusing to the average, run of the mill viewer why the vampire features changed so much. Sometimes he would maintain his human features, whereas other times his face would drastically change. I don't claim to know enough about vampiric history to automatically know why that would happen, and I'm willing to assume most viewers would also fall into this category. Feeding versus attacking was one theory I heard, but either way, the movie didn't really go into any detail about it, which was sometimes frustrating.
Also frustrating was Charlie's relationship with his so-called best friend, Ed. Apparently Charlie is sort of popular now that he's dating Amy, so his relationship with his old friend seems a little turbulent. I understand teen drama, and that they could potentially be having a falling out, but when Ed points out that their other friend, Adam, has gone missing, Charlie seems to not really give a shit. Even though Ed was spouting off seemingly nonsensical evidence about vampires, Charlie should have still acknowledged the fact that his friend was MIA, regardless of the circumstances.
Wrap up: This movie is very entertaining and quite funny. Definitely worth seeing.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Film Filter:Off - Paranormal Activity
Film Filter: Off - Since its debut in 2007, I had heard many mixed reviews of this film. Most of them fell into two categories: hated it, or loved it. Curious as to which group I fell into (and desperate to say I'd at least seen one of the franchise before Paranormal Activity 8 comes out) I felt I ought to peruse it.
Pros: Well, depending on how you like your films, the perspective of the camera was in first person, so that could really be a pro, or a con. I happened to like it for the style of this film. Sometimes this technique can get utilized poorly, but if you get the right cast in the film it can be highly successful i.e. Cloverfield, The Last Exorcism. I'd also like to note that, love or hate the film, it was successfully completed with a cast of five people and under an $11,000 budget. Now if only the U.S. could operate that efficiently...
Speaking of cast, I often like it when the character names coincide with the actors' names. It seems to, in my mind at least, add a little realism and credibility to the film, especially when an attempt at an "inspired by true events" movie is made. (Paranormal Activity, for the record, does not make this claim...but it was believable enough that I had to look it up in order to know that) My point is, names being identical to characters or not, Katie and Micah did a nice job being actors portraying "non-actors". Now, before you jump down my throat about all actors striving to appear as such, I have to clarify that this movie, and other first person perspective films, have a more difficult task in that their actors have to appear ignorant of the camera. Maybe other actors in other films aren't literally aware of the filming while they're in character, but THESE actors need to remain in character AND pretend like they're unaware of what's going on. It's sort of like a sane person portraying the role of a crazy person pretending to be sane...or something.
Say what you will about the lack of action in the film (and believe me, there was pretty much none) but the pacing of the action (or lack thereof) made you literally sit on the edge of your seat anticipating when it would come. Granted, it really never came, so you'd probably be sitting awhile, but I'd like to think the directors had a different mental approach to this film. Scary movies usually end up being "visually striking" (as Netflix likes to categorize them) which can sometimes cause films to bastardize the concept of monsters, gory details and frightening moments that could occur. The beauty of ghost, paranormal, and demonic stories is that oftentimes less is more. That gripping, edge of your seat, pull the blanket over your eyes, stone-cold terror comes from anticipation of creepy things in the realm of the unknown. What's NOT visible to us is usually what is most frightening, so I'd like to think that the directors are trying to channel in on that realistic fear that is inside us all. If so, job well done. If not...well, I expect better from you in the next two films. If the former was indeed the goal, they did an excellent job showing the evolution of the demonic presence, and gave us just enough to freak us out, but not so much that it seemed over the top or unrealistic.
Cons: This movie is a toughie to dissect, because it was a little hard for me to decipher the intent of how the movie was to be perceived. One thing is for certain, though, and that is that this movie is NOT for you if you're looking for a lot of action, a lot of plot driven circumstances, or pop-up scary moments. There were an ample amount of opportunities for all of the above to occur, but none of them were taken. I can understand why, if the director wants to maintain integrity for the direction of the film (should my hypothesis be accurate) but there's always a little bit of wiggle room to toss in a couple of those moments that make scary movies, well, scary.
Since we've established that this film is not based on true events, I feel I can rip on the two leads a little more relentlessly. What kind of person neglects to mention the fact that they have been haunted by a demon for the past 12 years before moving in with their boyfriend? Yeah, yeah "B-b-but sweetie! Wh-what was I s-s-supposed to say?" Ummmm, how about anything? That's like waiting until after you sleep with someone to tell them you have an STD. So not cool. Yeah, maybe he will leave you, but do you blame him? Then she gets really upset with him when he doesn't take it "seriously". Well, you sort of unwillingly dragged him into the scenario, didn't you? So how on Earth can you expect an unwilling participant in an extraordinarily freaky situation to be completely calm and serious about it? It seems like she's waaaaay too high maintenance a broad, above and beyond the whole demon stalker scenario.
Lastly, the time stamp on the camera was inconsistent. It was only on some of the time and, if you watch carefully, they accomplish tasks in much too short a period of time. Like, he phases from one side of the room to the other in two seconds, or goes from PJs to completely clothed in a minute flat without seeing him change. Not the end of the world by any means, but if you're going to do it, do it right people.
Wrap up- So what category am I in: love it or hate it? Neither. It's pretty much a middle of the road, mediocrely made low-budget scary movie.
Pros: Well, depending on how you like your films, the perspective of the camera was in first person, so that could really be a pro, or a con. I happened to like it for the style of this film. Sometimes this technique can get utilized poorly, but if you get the right cast in the film it can be highly successful i.e. Cloverfield, The Last Exorcism. I'd also like to note that, love or hate the film, it was successfully completed with a cast of five people and under an $11,000 budget. Now if only the U.S. could operate that efficiently...
Speaking of cast, I often like it when the character names coincide with the actors' names. It seems to, in my mind at least, add a little realism and credibility to the film, especially when an attempt at an "inspired by true events" movie is made. (Paranormal Activity, for the record, does not make this claim...but it was believable enough that I had to look it up in order to know that) My point is, names being identical to characters or not, Katie and Micah did a nice job being actors portraying "non-actors". Now, before you jump down my throat about all actors striving to appear as such, I have to clarify that this movie, and other first person perspective films, have a more difficult task in that their actors have to appear ignorant of the camera. Maybe other actors in other films aren't literally aware of the filming while they're in character, but THESE actors need to remain in character AND pretend like they're unaware of what's going on. It's sort of like a sane person portraying the role of a crazy person pretending to be sane...or something.
Say what you will about the lack of action in the film (and believe me, there was pretty much none) but the pacing of the action (or lack thereof) made you literally sit on the edge of your seat anticipating when it would come. Granted, it really never came, so you'd probably be sitting awhile, but I'd like to think the directors had a different mental approach to this film. Scary movies usually end up being "visually striking" (as Netflix likes to categorize them) which can sometimes cause films to bastardize the concept of monsters, gory details and frightening moments that could occur. The beauty of ghost, paranormal, and demonic stories is that oftentimes less is more. That gripping, edge of your seat, pull the blanket over your eyes, stone-cold terror comes from anticipation of creepy things in the realm of the unknown. What's NOT visible to us is usually what is most frightening, so I'd like to think that the directors are trying to channel in on that realistic fear that is inside us all. If so, job well done. If not...well, I expect better from you in the next two films. If the former was indeed the goal, they did an excellent job showing the evolution of the demonic presence, and gave us just enough to freak us out, but not so much that it seemed over the top or unrealistic.
Cons: This movie is a toughie to dissect, because it was a little hard for me to decipher the intent of how the movie was to be perceived. One thing is for certain, though, and that is that this movie is NOT for you if you're looking for a lot of action, a lot of plot driven circumstances, or pop-up scary moments. There were an ample amount of opportunities for all of the above to occur, but none of them were taken. I can understand why, if the director wants to maintain integrity for the direction of the film (should my hypothesis be accurate) but there's always a little bit of wiggle room to toss in a couple of those moments that make scary movies, well, scary.
Since we've established that this film is not based on true events, I feel I can rip on the two leads a little more relentlessly. What kind of person neglects to mention the fact that they have been haunted by a demon for the past 12 years before moving in with their boyfriend? Yeah, yeah "B-b-but sweetie! Wh-what was I s-s-supposed to say?" Ummmm, how about anything? That's like waiting until after you sleep with someone to tell them you have an STD. So not cool. Yeah, maybe he will leave you, but do you blame him? Then she gets really upset with him when he doesn't take it "seriously". Well, you sort of unwillingly dragged him into the scenario, didn't you? So how on Earth can you expect an unwilling participant in an extraordinarily freaky situation to be completely calm and serious about it? It seems like she's waaaaay too high maintenance a broad, above and beyond the whole demon stalker scenario.
Lastly, the time stamp on the camera was inconsistent. It was only on some of the time and, if you watch carefully, they accomplish tasks in much too short a period of time. Like, he phases from one side of the room to the other in two seconds, or goes from PJs to completely clothed in a minute flat without seeing him change. Not the end of the world by any means, but if you're going to do it, do it right people.
Wrap up- So what category am I in: love it or hate it? Neither. It's pretty much a middle of the road, mediocrely made low-budget scary movie.
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Film Filter:Off - Red Riding Hood
Film Filter: Off- I had seen this movie on the shelf at Blockbuster and thought it looked like a waste of money, so I passed it over and waited until I could get home and watch it on HBO on demand for free. I have to say, I was more than pleasantly surprised with the film for many reasons.
Pros- First of all, there's a lot of male eye candy for any females interested in watching the film, and Amanda Seyfried certainly isn't an eyesore for the males. Not that an attractive cast makes or breaks a film, but shitty films can almost be pseudo-tolerable if the people you're watching are hot.
I like the appeal of recreating a well known fairy tale and darkening it. It's no secret that many fairy tales have dark tendencies to begin with, but this film takes that, feeds off of it, and twists it a bit as well. In addition to the stereotypical Red Riding Hood plot, they also tie in historical elements of witchcraft and black magic, romance and arranged marriage, and community values. There really seemed to have been a lot of thought that went into just the structure of content in the film, and it made a difference for sure.
I also loved the murder mystery aspect in trying to figure out who the killer is, which is a predominant theme in the film. By turning the wolf into a werewolf, the stakes are raised in that the antagonist takes the form of a human as well. A lot of the time murder mysteries don't adequately cover up who the killer is, or are too deliberate in leading you away from who it is. This film was a pleasant surprise by getting it just right, which is very refreshing. There's nothing better than seeing the killer for the first time and thinking, "NO WAY!" Going off of the killer-identification theme, this movie also smoothly scratches suspects off the list, leaving just enough people plausible at the end to make it really interesting, but not overwhelming.
It didn't hurt that the scenery of the village was gorgeous, and the movie did a good job of staying true to an older, unmodernized civilization. The perspective of the wolf was also interesting, as the camera took a break from the clean, traditional third party perspective and became a shaky, hectic window from the wolf's point of view.
Cons- I plead the fifth.
Wrap up- This film was not only entertaining to watch from beginning to end, but it was also really well done artistically. I strongly recommend it for any movie lover.
Pros- First of all, there's a lot of male eye candy for any females interested in watching the film, and Amanda Seyfried certainly isn't an eyesore for the males. Not that an attractive cast makes or breaks a film, but shitty films can almost be pseudo-tolerable if the people you're watching are hot.
I like the appeal of recreating a well known fairy tale and darkening it. It's no secret that many fairy tales have dark tendencies to begin with, but this film takes that, feeds off of it, and twists it a bit as well. In addition to the stereotypical Red Riding Hood plot, they also tie in historical elements of witchcraft and black magic, romance and arranged marriage, and community values. There really seemed to have been a lot of thought that went into just the structure of content in the film, and it made a difference for sure.
I also loved the murder mystery aspect in trying to figure out who the killer is, which is a predominant theme in the film. By turning the wolf into a werewolf, the stakes are raised in that the antagonist takes the form of a human as well. A lot of the time murder mysteries don't adequately cover up who the killer is, or are too deliberate in leading you away from who it is. This film was a pleasant surprise by getting it just right, which is very refreshing. There's nothing better than seeing the killer for the first time and thinking, "NO WAY!" Going off of the killer-identification theme, this movie also smoothly scratches suspects off the list, leaving just enough people plausible at the end to make it really interesting, but not overwhelming.
It didn't hurt that the scenery of the village was gorgeous, and the movie did a good job of staying true to an older, unmodernized civilization. The perspective of the wolf was also interesting, as the camera took a break from the clean, traditional third party perspective and became a shaky, hectic window from the wolf's point of view.
Cons- I plead the fifth.
Wrap up- This film was not only entertaining to watch from beginning to end, but it was also really well done artistically. I strongly recommend it for any movie lover.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Film Filter: Off- Blitz
Blitz
Film Filter: Off- Really, Jason Statham? It's 2011 and THIS is the best you can do? Tsk, tsk...
Pros- Well, Jason Statham is major eye candy, for one. Did you know he was a professional model and an Olympc diver before he began acting? Well, this movie makes me think he should perhaps put the Speedo back on... Other pros? Some of the acting was pretty decent, but it's hard to notice when the characters are watered down and lifeless.
Cons- *sigh* Ok. Let's start with the overall feel of the film. It's a serial killer/thriler (without Ashley Judd?) and yet they're casting Statham and trying so desperately to make it an action packed chase movie where people beat the living hell out of each other. There's a reason they don't make animated Disney films with lewd drug references, so pick a genre already and stop messing with my head. Despite the contrasting feel of the type of film, Statham did okay, although would it kill him to expand his character horizons?
Next we shall discuss the lack of any meat in the story. No motive, no background on any characters, no relationships between characters, no personal dialogue. Seriously, this movie has as much substance as Benefiber. Even the few circumstances where things outside the direct plot occur end up sucking and making no sense. The one cop goes out on a date with a guy and FREAKS out as he drops her off about calling her the next day. A man's wife dies at the beginning, and we don't know why and it doesn't further the plot along. The female cop has a young gang member buddy who she looks out for, though we don't know what their relationship is or why. Arrrghghhg. I could go on and on.
Waitress, I'd like to order a diet serial killer thriller with a side of unrealistic scenarios, please. The main suspect for the murder is pretty much a moron cop-killer who rides a bike. Shockingly, every time he offs a cop they are: alone, awkwardly cheerful, unaware of ANYTHING around them, and in a dark alley with absolutely no one around. Because that's how trained officers roll.
Lastly, I'd like to point out the stupid music. There's a death scene in which each time the victim gets thrown against a wall, kicked, or bashed in the face, the music resounds at the exact moment of impact with a loud orchestral accent. Really? Are we reeeeaaaaalllly going to choreograph a death scene like we're in the middle of The Producers? Music has its role in films in different ways, but I don't think I should be waiting on bated breath to see a step-ball-change after someone pulverizes one's face in with a hammer.
Wrap-up- No. Just...no.
Film Filter: Off- Really, Jason Statham? It's 2011 and THIS is the best you can do? Tsk, tsk...
Pros- Well, Jason Statham is major eye candy, for one. Did you know he was a professional model and an Olympc diver before he began acting? Well, this movie makes me think he should perhaps put the Speedo back on... Other pros? Some of the acting was pretty decent, but it's hard to notice when the characters are watered down and lifeless.
Cons- *sigh* Ok. Let's start with the overall feel of the film. It's a serial killer/thriler (without Ashley Judd?) and yet they're casting Statham and trying so desperately to make it an action packed chase movie where people beat the living hell out of each other. There's a reason they don't make animated Disney films with lewd drug references, so pick a genre already and stop messing with my head. Despite the contrasting feel of the type of film, Statham did okay, although would it kill him to expand his character horizons?
Next we shall discuss the lack of any meat in the story. No motive, no background on any characters, no relationships between characters, no personal dialogue. Seriously, this movie has as much substance as Benefiber. Even the few circumstances where things outside the direct plot occur end up sucking and making no sense. The one cop goes out on a date with a guy and FREAKS out as he drops her off about calling her the next day. A man's wife dies at the beginning, and we don't know why and it doesn't further the plot along. The female cop has a young gang member buddy who she looks out for, though we don't know what their relationship is or why. Arrrghghhg. I could go on and on.
Waitress, I'd like to order a diet serial killer thriller with a side of unrealistic scenarios, please. The main suspect for the murder is pretty much a moron cop-killer who rides a bike. Shockingly, every time he offs a cop they are: alone, awkwardly cheerful, unaware of ANYTHING around them, and in a dark alley with absolutely no one around. Because that's how trained officers roll.
Lastly, I'd like to point out the stupid music. There's a death scene in which each time the victim gets thrown against a wall, kicked, or bashed in the face, the music resounds at the exact moment of impact with a loud orchestral accent. Really? Are we reeeeaaaaalllly going to choreograph a death scene like we're in the middle of The Producers? Music has its role in films in different ways, but I don't think I should be waiting on bated breath to see a step-ball-change after someone pulverizes one's face in with a hammer.
Wrap-up- No. Just...no.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)