Film Filter: Off - Sharknado

Film Filter: Off- This movie came up on Netflix's recently added category, and I wanted to peruse it to make sure I understood the premise properly.  Unfortunately, I had, and this movie is literally about a tornado of sharks.  Wow.

Pros- The only thing I could come up with was that Tara Reid's character wore a shirt baggy enough to cover her horrendous boob job.

Cons- Okay.  Let's pretend for a second that the TERRIBLE special effects and CGI didn't singlehandedly ruin this film, or that the lack of character development and sub-par acting didn't make this film laughable within the first three minutes.  Above and beyond all that, there are a plethora of unanswered questions, extraordinarily stupid and illogical moments, inconsistencies galore, and just plain old incorrect information.  Oy vey.  Methinks I should break this down by category.

• Inconsistencies galore- So, one minute the beach is in a full swing hurricane, and in the next shot the waves are calm.  One scene shows the characters in a monsoon, the next scene their hair is dry.  They are all in the house, and all of a sudden the windows burst with water and it starts to fill up to their waist.  As soon as they leave, however, there is less than an inch of water on the ground.  ?!  SPOILER ALERT- Fin can slice up a shark directly in half as it cascades from the sky at likely record speeds, but can't cut through it from the inside out without taking a painfully pansy-ish amount of time?  Lame.
• Just plain old incorrect information- Sharks, although given an unfair cinematic reputation, are not that aggressive.  They were, like, in two feet of water just eating people and attacking them at random.  Sharks don't play that way, homie.  At least, not in real life.  Also, these sharks were able to jump ridiculously high, when in reality only few species of shark can actually accomplish this feat.  One of the sharks conveniently landed on top of the vehicle they were driving, and was able to eat its way through the roof of the car and attack the passengers.  First of all, most breeds of shark can only cognitively function outside of water for between 3-7 minutes, and secondly (although I didn't crunch the numbers) I'm fairly certain that they don't possess the strength to eat through the entire roof of a Jeep.  Lastly, let's diffuse the tornado by throwing a bomb in it!  Wait, what?  Does that actually work?  That's a no.  And let's not forget the stupid shark in the retirement pool.  Sharks can't live in freshwater (unless they're Bull Sharks), let alone highly chlorinated, chemically infested, geriatric pee-ridden pool water.  Get your shit together, Sharknado researchers.  Were they all wasted when they laid out the story line, or did they just use a Magic 8 ball to guide their brilliant decisions?
• Stupid and illogical moments- So we're throwing bombs in tornados, and I'm just going to have to deal with that, but how in the hell does Matt's flight instructor get sucked up by the tornado through a window, when he and Nova were able to fly in a helicopter (UNBUCKLED) directly next to it without facing its repercussions?  Did they take their magic tornado repellant that morning or something?  I'm not buying it.  Plus, there are tons of moments where sharks "just so happen" to be falling from the sky in the correct manner and position to eat someone on the way down.  Does this strike anyone else as highly coincidental?  When the hero of the movie is climbing up the rope, a shark jumps (unusually high) and latches on to it.  Ummmm, no.  That wouldn't happen.  With the rope being that thin?  And why would the shark even want to?  Ay yay yay...  Last but not least, the odds of both Fin and Nova ending up in the belly of the same shark, unscathed and alive?  It's very biblically poignant, but come on.  Really?
• A plethora of unanswered questions- Where on earth did all of these sharks come from?  That was never really explained.  "Oh, it's just the storm"  No way, not buying it.  Plus they're way too aggressive.  At least in Deep Blue Sea there was a logical explanation for the unnecessary rage in the sharks.  I guess if I was floating around in a hurricane, and then a tornado, I'd be pissed too.  Why did Fin and his wife split up?  And WHY did he get back together with her at the end?  She was an irrational be-yotch who couldn't act her way out of a D-list, made for TV, sy-fy movie.  Literally.  

Wrap up- Clearly, I could go on for hours with this film's issues.  At the end of the day though, I have a really hard time believing that this movie was meant to be taken seriously.  If it was, god help the movie industry.

HOME

Film Filter: Off - Paranormal Activity 3

Film Filter: Off- I have to admit that the first film had the element of intrigue because it was the first.  The second one was mildly interesting, as it leads into the story of the first one.  Did this film really need to made, though?  Really?

Pros- As I found with the other two movies, the acting in these films is very believable.  The character interactions feel very realistic, and even the children seem to have a very believable niche in the film, in terms of their characterization.
   If you're into the ever-so-slowly-built anticipation and suspense type of thrills, you will enjoy this franchise.  I will admit that it is effective in ways, but the manner in which this scare tactic should be used is the real key to building a successful film.  This film doesn't quite get there.
   Again, the analytic in me likes the expansion of the story, and the answers that are provided to fill in the gaps.  There comes a point, though, when stories don't likely need to be continued, and I fear this franchise will reach this point sooner than they will stop putting out movies.
   For any other "pros", check out my reviews of the first two films.  They're all kind of the same at this point.

Cons- The beginning of the movie was slightly hard to follow through it's time changes, but once the time stamps started occurring on the film, it cleared everything up.  Maybe it had just been so long since  I had seen the other two, and knowing that this one is a prequel that took place when Katie and Krista where kids, I was confused to see them as adults.
   As soon as the movie started taking place in 1988, it was a little odd to me that Dennis was so gung-ho on filming everything.  In the first film, Micah gets a camera and is oddly obsessed with filming, and the second one uses security cameras.  It makes a bit more sense when the audience realizes that Dennis is a videographer, but why would he waste his resources filming random things in the house?  Eventually, enough evidence presents itself for him to want to document things, but at the beginning of the film it doesn't seem logical to me that he's wasting film on pointless things.
   This.  Film.  Is. So.  Slow.  In the one hour and forty some odd minutes of its runtime, we learn probably three things total.  And most of that information is awarded toward the end of the film.  When you're creating the first film in a series, by all means, build the suspense and make us wait for it.  But in the third installment?  Please.  We're invested this time for the information.  Not the 72 minutes of pointless footage that includes a swinging lamp that bursts and a young girl standing in her mom's bedroom for three hours.  Not to mention, when information is disclosed, it is mighty difficult to decipher it.  I could figure out the connections between the witches and the markings and the house, but the whole wedding/first boy in the family really went over my head.  When you line it all up from film to film it makes sense, but it took awhile for me.
   There are multiple opportunities for there to have been frightening moments that were not properly taken advantage of.  Examples being the Bloody Mary scene, and the baby-sitter in the kitchen.  There was something that occurred, yes, but was it scary?  Eh...not so much.  There is a difference, to me, between a truly frightening moment, and something that seems scarier than it is because in contrast to the slow paced, boring scenes that take up 92% of the film it stands out.  Anything would be scary in contrast to, well, nothing happening.  I know some argue that this movie is able to deliver scares by not really doing anything but playing on people's fears of what goes bump in the night, and to a degree they have a point.  If you want to save the money to see it in theaters, though, I'll show up in your bedroom and scare you for a dollar.  Way cheaper.

Wrap up- This movie does a good job of creating suspense, and never fulfilling its promise of delivering anything actually scary.  It's literally an hour and a half of waiting to be scared, and then watching the credits and saying, "Oh.  Really?  That's it?".  Le sigh.  I would say I have high hopes for 4 & 5, but based on eviews of the new one, I might just quit while I'm ahead.  Er, behind.  Whatever.

HOME

Film Filter: Off - The Ninth Gate

Film Filter: Off- As you will likely know if you've followed my blog, I'm pretty enthralled with theological or satanic movies.  This clearly falls into that category, and it features Johnny Depp, so how could I say no?

Pros- Well, Johnny Depp, for one.  Although I wasn't in love with this film, he does a solid job portraying the self-serving books dealer who's in it for the money.  He finds ways to fit some quirky humor into the role at times as well which, with a movie over two hours in length, is arguably necessary.

   Despite the fact that the movie itself is so long, the pacing seemed pretty smooth.  There weren't any parts of the film that dragged, and the few times that you sensed the movie was following a predictable pattern, they found a way to make slight changes that threw you off.

   The idea of devil worshipping and idolatry is not new, but the way this one played out was slightly different.  I definitely liked that there were three books, and there were puzzle pieces hidden within them.  It made it more interesting and complex.  It also added obstacles, as the book itself was too precious for any of the owners to part with, making Depp's character have to work for the information.

   By the time the film was coming to a close, I hope most audience members realized the film, and particularly the woman, was going in one of two directions.  I thought it was definitely interesting which direction was taken, as it was not the predictable ending that I assumed it would be.  It was a gratifying in ways, but not in others.  Definitely points for going against the grain, though.

Cons- The music.  Oh, God, that music.  I have no idea who scored this film, but there were parts of it that were literally laughable because of the score.  Bad, bad, bad.  There were one or two parts where I did feel that the music did enhance the scene, with some light, minor piano nuances, but those were much too few and far between.

   The fight scenes.  Really, 1999?  Is that all you've got?  It was very poorly done, and because the rest of the movie wasn't so, it made it stand out in a less than favorable way.  Lucky for me, there were only a handful of fight scenes throughout the whole thing, so the suffering was minimal.

   Awkward levitation.  Was that absolutely necessary?  I mean, clearly she's getting from point A to point B way sooner than humans can, so can't she just teleport?  Or just show up there in the scene?  It's fine that she can levitate, and I get that it puts a sort of tangible awareness to her non-humanness, but if you can't make it look right then I wouldn't bother.  We're an adult audience, we can figure it out without seeing horrible special effects that ruin the magic of her presence.

   The ending left some questions.  I would research this further or read the book if you're confused.  It helps.

Wrap up- I can't say my first tackled film of 2014 was a hit.  It definitely had some massive potential, but too many tiny flaws blew it for the movie as a whole.  This film is whole-heartedly so-so.

HOME

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