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.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
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.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Film Filter: Off- The Order
Film Filter: Off- I have to be honest in that this is one of my better liked Theological Thrillers, but that can't dilute my ability to write a fair review. Upon watching it more recently, there were some pieces of it that irked me slightly.
Pros- Definitely Heath Ledger. I think he's a fantastic actor and, had his career not been cut short, would have accomplished some amazing things.
I also think the premise of the story is quite unique. Never in my experience with these types of movies have I heard of a Sin Eater, so it compelled me to do some research. Apparently, there is documentation of Sin Eaters in existence- the ritual primarily being practiced in the UK in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The movie seemed to have exaggerated the Sin Eater's literal role in eternal salvation, but hey, that's showbiz.
I also researched the order of the Carolingians, of which the film is based on. Sources say that this order is purely fictional, as their purpose serves to rid the earth of demons, ghosts, and otherworldly creatures. I can see how this group may have been deemed necessary in earlier centuries, where demonic possession and spiritual salvation were more prominent topics, but it remains to be seen whether there is truth to their existence. Perhaps this alleged fictional topic is why few movies discuss this topic or the group, but it is an interesting concept nonetheless.
I believe the acting in the film is well done, although I'm not a huge fan when directors choose a majority of actors that were featured together in another film (A Knight's Tale). I also thought, given the potential false nature of the information presented, the scenarios and acting were pretty realistic: the way Mara reacts when she is being attacked, Alex's reaction to death, Thomas's struggles with speech after he is briefly hanged- just to name a few. I believe it's important, especially when making a pseudo-fiction film, to try to maintain a believable nature to enhance the credibility, whether it be true or not.
Cons- Overall, the biggest problem with the film is the bastardization of what once was a real concept. Sin Eaters did exist, but the film took the perspective of turning him into an almost superhero. He is essentially immortal, and has abilities most people cannot possess, although the movie does point out that he can be killed. Given the prospect of the ability to live for many centuries and acquire innumerable wealth and knowledge, it seems a bit of a paradox that William is the last Sin Eater. Besides the potential consequence of eternal damnation, why aren't people coming out of the woodwork to take over? Or why is there only one left in the first place?
As I mentioned, I think the believability of the scenarios in the film is pretty good, which is why it irked me the very few times that it wasn't. In a few scenes, an underground cave is revealed to be a location where people can seek information from someone who is about to die via hanging. For whatever reason, their speaking voices are oddly altered, and not in a "you're about to have your vocal folds collapse" sort of way either. It made them sound cool, for sure, but realistic? Not so much.
Wrap up- Overall, this movie is thought-provoking and interesting. I was bummed to find out that most of it was probably fake, but in a way, that gives props to the movie for getting me to jump on the bandwagon.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Film FIlter: Off - The Ward
Film Filter: Off- I have to say that this movie was a very pleasant surprise. I didn't have exceptionally high hopes for it, but it's definitely worth watching.
Pros- First off, I'd like to commend director John Carpenter on his choice to star Amber Heard. She is ridiculously beautiful, but it turns out she's a decent actress as well. Kudos! I think the biggest thing that makes this movie successful is the pacing of the film. It starts out as generic horror films do, but it leaks the facts to you in a slow, intriguing fashion that hooks you in with its lack of information, but keeps you riveted by the information that IS present. This movie also contains a twist ending, so it really does keep you wondering until the very end.
I also think the acting on all the women's behalves was commendable. I always state how great an actor it takes to believably portray a crazy person, and this film proves it. The cast had to not only play young women in a mental hospital, but also show the varying sides of mental illness, as each character was very different.
Lastly, every good horror flick needs shock value. Pop-up moments, when used well and in moderation, are a must in scary movies. This film uses them well, despite their often predictability.
Cons- I have to reach to find some cons in this movie. I wasn't a huge fan of the makeup of the ghost. It felt a little over-the-top and cliche to me, as did some of the death scenes. Other than that, I really have no complaints.
Wrap up- This movie is a must-see if you liked Shutter Island. It's essentially the same storyline in many ways, other than it stars attractive females instead. I won't say that it's better, but definitely worth watching.
Pros- First off, I'd like to commend director John Carpenter on his choice to star Amber Heard. She is ridiculously beautiful, but it turns out she's a decent actress as well. Kudos! I think the biggest thing that makes this movie successful is the pacing of the film. It starts out as generic horror films do, but it leaks the facts to you in a slow, intriguing fashion that hooks you in with its lack of information, but keeps you riveted by the information that IS present. This movie also contains a twist ending, so it really does keep you wondering until the very end.
I also think the acting on all the women's behalves was commendable. I always state how great an actor it takes to believably portray a crazy person, and this film proves it. The cast had to not only play young women in a mental hospital, but also show the varying sides of mental illness, as each character was very different.
Lastly, every good horror flick needs shock value. Pop-up moments, when used well and in moderation, are a must in scary movies. This film uses them well, despite their often predictability.
Cons- I have to reach to find some cons in this movie. I wasn't a huge fan of the makeup of the ghost. It felt a little over-the-top and cliche to me, as did some of the death scenes. Other than that, I really have no complaints.
Wrap up- This movie is a must-see if you liked Shutter Island. It's essentially the same storyline in many ways, other than it stars attractive females instead. I won't say that it's better, but definitely worth watching.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Film Filter: Off - The Exorcism of Emily Rose
Film Filter: Off- I have to start out by saying this is probably my all time favorite horror flick. Anytime anyone asks me for a good recommendation, this is the first one I spout. I think it's virtually a flawlessly made scary movie, and it seriously creeps the shit out of me EVERY time I see it. For reals.
Pros- Besides everything? Hmm, let's start with the fact that it's my favorite (self-generated) movie genre of Theological Thriller. I love that movies of that classification have a haunting sense of realism to them, as they don't feature stereotypical movie "monsters" seeking blood or vengeance. For me, these films strike a deep cord of fear that roots itself in its plausibility. The idea of something I actually believe in haunting me without any way to control it, or myself, is much more frightening than a foot tall gingerbread man stalker, midget leprechaun assailant, or gargantuan hooked villain. But hey, that's just me.
This movie also has fantastic symbolism and cinematography. Leave it to a spiritually-rooted film to create mass symbolism (no pun intended), right? This film is no exception. Above and beyond its spiritual symbols, its use of the colors red and white in different scenes does not go unnoticed, and even the Rachmaninoff prelude in C# minor that is played by Emily on the piano is indicative of a dark, haunting theme. Also, the cinematography sort of piggybacks off of the symbolism concept. Although not exclusively relevant to each other, the screen shots and scenery in certain parts of the film help enhance the symbolism, while providing a wide array of aesthetics to feast on through the duration of the film.
Going off of that concept, the ability to have a story with a small group of key characters as opposed to one main character allows us to have a variety of stories and perspectives in the film. The nature of the time changes (going from the present to the past) also accounts for this. These concepts help the film to become diversified, while not deviating from the main point of the story.
The acting in the film is very good, especially on behalf of Jennifer Carpenter who plays Emily Rose. This seems to be Carpenter's first big film, and it mustn't have been easy to portray a possessed person. You know an actor does a great job when it isn't until the fifth time you've seen the movie that you think, "Gosh, that must've been really hard PRETENDING to be possessed..." because the thought that they aren't actually possessed hadn't occurred to you.
Cons- Psssh! Really?
Wrap-up- There are many other things that are great about this movie, but why read about it here? Why don't you just watch it already?
Pros- Besides everything? Hmm, let's start with the fact that it's my favorite (self-generated) movie genre of Theological Thriller. I love that movies of that classification have a haunting sense of realism to them, as they don't feature stereotypical movie "monsters" seeking blood or vengeance. For me, these films strike a deep cord of fear that roots itself in its plausibility. The idea of something I actually believe in haunting me without any way to control it, or myself, is much more frightening than a foot tall gingerbread man stalker, midget leprechaun assailant, or gargantuan hooked villain. But hey, that's just me.
This movie also has fantastic symbolism and cinematography. Leave it to a spiritually-rooted film to create mass symbolism (no pun intended), right? This film is no exception. Above and beyond its spiritual symbols, its use of the colors red and white in different scenes does not go unnoticed, and even the Rachmaninoff prelude in C# minor that is played by Emily on the piano is indicative of a dark, haunting theme. Also, the cinematography sort of piggybacks off of the symbolism concept. Although not exclusively relevant to each other, the screen shots and scenery in certain parts of the film help enhance the symbolism, while providing a wide array of aesthetics to feast on through the duration of the film.
Going off of that concept, the ability to have a story with a small group of key characters as opposed to one main character allows us to have a variety of stories and perspectives in the film. The nature of the time changes (going from the present to the past) also accounts for this. These concepts help the film to become diversified, while not deviating from the main point of the story.
The acting in the film is very good, especially on behalf of Jennifer Carpenter who plays Emily Rose. This seems to be Carpenter's first big film, and it mustn't have been easy to portray a possessed person. You know an actor does a great job when it isn't until the fifth time you've seen the movie that you think, "Gosh, that must've been really hard PRETENDING to be possessed..." because the thought that they aren't actually possessed hadn't occurred to you.
Cons- Psssh! Really?
Wrap-up- There are many other things that are great about this movie, but why read about it here? Why don't you just watch it already?
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Film Filter: Off - Orphan
Film Filter: Off - As per a request by my mother, I decided to rent this movie from Blockbuster. She had said that it was really good, and for the most part, I'd be inclined to agree.
Pros- Firstly, I have to commend the cast of the film, as I thought all characters were portrayed very well, especially Esther and Kate.
Another one of the things this movie had going for it was the way it interpreted a commonly used storyline. The familiar adoption or inclusion of another person who deviates from the "norm" is seen in a variety of films, some done better than others. One of the keys to using this concept well is the ability to allow the audience to grow to empathize with/pity the antagonist before they become the antagonist, which this film does well.
It's also refreshing to see a dysfunctional family on screen. Too often families are portrayed a little too picture perfect, and it makes it difficult to relate to them or get behind them or their situation in the film. The combination of a once unfaithful husband to a once alcoholic wife who miscarried her third child but bore a normal son and a deaf daughter definitely defines this family as far from perfect.
Lastly, the twist toward the end of this film is truly unexpected, and very unique. It puts a lot of prior actions into perspective, and helps move the story along rapidly after it's revealed.
Cons- Although Esther's character is slightly, if not completely deranged, I think sometimes the extremes of her actions come off as a little unbelievable at times. Of course, we all understand that she's pretty nuts, and crazy people tend to be unpredictable, but so much of the movie has a realistic tone to it, that her outburst sort of feel out of place.
The only other thing that I can complain about in regards to this film is the stupidity of Kate's other two children. Bribed to keep Esther's secrets from their parents, they both find themselves unable to tell their mother about Esther's behavior, even though it will clearly cause someone harm in the long run. Most of the time Esther is present for any opportunity in which they could rat her out, but the one time she is not, both of the kids wimp out. It becomes innately frustrating throughout the film, as it puts almost all of the protagonists into a stupid, helpless situation.
Wrap-up- Overall, this movie was very well done, with quite an unexpected ending. Thanks for the recommendation, Mom!
Pros- Firstly, I have to commend the cast of the film, as I thought all characters were portrayed very well, especially Esther and Kate.
Another one of the things this movie had going for it was the way it interpreted a commonly used storyline. The familiar adoption or inclusion of another person who deviates from the "norm" is seen in a variety of films, some done better than others. One of the keys to using this concept well is the ability to allow the audience to grow to empathize with/pity the antagonist before they become the antagonist, which this film does well.
It's also refreshing to see a dysfunctional family on screen. Too often families are portrayed a little too picture perfect, and it makes it difficult to relate to them or get behind them or their situation in the film. The combination of a once unfaithful husband to a once alcoholic wife who miscarried her third child but bore a normal son and a deaf daughter definitely defines this family as far from perfect.
Lastly, the twist toward the end of this film is truly unexpected, and very unique. It puts a lot of prior actions into perspective, and helps move the story along rapidly after it's revealed.
Cons- Although Esther's character is slightly, if not completely deranged, I think sometimes the extremes of her actions come off as a little unbelievable at times. Of course, we all understand that she's pretty nuts, and crazy people tend to be unpredictable, but so much of the movie has a realistic tone to it, that her outburst sort of feel out of place.
The only other thing that I can complain about in regards to this film is the stupidity of Kate's other two children. Bribed to keep Esther's secrets from their parents, they both find themselves unable to tell their mother about Esther's behavior, even though it will clearly cause someone harm in the long run. Most of the time Esther is present for any opportunity in which they could rat her out, but the one time she is not, both of the kids wimp out. It becomes innately frustrating throughout the film, as it puts almost all of the protagonists into a stupid, helpless situation.
Wrap-up- Overall, this movie was very well done, with quite an unexpected ending. Thanks for the recommendation, Mom!
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Film Filter: Off - Straw Dogs
Film Filter: Off - Well, I had high hopes for this film. The previews made it out to be pretty epic and intelligent, but the movie itself fell far below said expectations.
Pros- You could argue that Kate Bosworth jogging braless is a pro. You could also say that James Marsden playing a nerdy intellect is also a pro, as it isn't a role I've seen him play in other films.
Outside of the main characters, I did like that there was a vast array of personalities in the film: the nerd, the jock, the douche-bag, the dumb person, the slutty one, the levelheaded one that gets killed first, etc. It sort of balanced out the film, but in ways it made it hard to follow because each character had such a strong personality that it was impossible to give each one their proper background story and still allow the plot to carry through at a bearable pace.
One of the things that was most intriguing about the previews (and motivated me to see the film) was its attempt at believability with the ways in which the "bad guys" are killed off. It appears as though the protagonists are all of a sudden in danger, not giving them much time to prepare to kill their antagonists and forcing them to be more creative in the ways they murder them.
Cons- I wasn't a huge fan of the relationship between the main characters. I'm not sure if it was a flaw in their on-screen chemistry, or poor direction, but it seemed very strained and not very believable. It, unfortunately, got worse as the movie continued which made it hard to enjoy because I found myself questioning their marriage more than I found myself rooting for them to survive.
The lack of common sense with Bosworth and Marsden was pretty astounding as well. This was particularly annoying due to the fact that the movie was trying so hard to be off the cuff, clever, and believable, but their stupidity sort of ruined it and got in the way.
Hands down the most frustrating thing about this movie is the LACK OF INFORMATION. There is little to nothing hinted at in this film that gives us any background information on ANY character, which is only so frustrating because the movie teases us with ambiguous past experiences, but doesn't go into any detail with any of them. Keeping in mind that this storyline was initially a book, then a movie, and now ANOTHER movie, I can only assume (and pray) that the book keeps these critical plot points that the movie deemed unnecessary,
And last but not least, there is a rape scene. Ick. I put this in the cons category because there was pretty much zero reason for them to include it in the film. I can tolerate these scenes when they move the story along by using the emotion of the scenario to fuel it, but this scene was not only uncomfortable to watch, but it was never (relevantly) brought up again in the plot. If you're going to use a rape scene, use it well, or don't use it at all.
Wrap up- Overall, this movie was a big let down. I'm hoping the book and first movie are better, but seeing this version has inhibited me from researching this story further due to its extreme sucky-ness.
Pros- You could argue that Kate Bosworth jogging braless is a pro. You could also say that James Marsden playing a nerdy intellect is also a pro, as it isn't a role I've seen him play in other films.
Outside of the main characters, I did like that there was a vast array of personalities in the film: the nerd, the jock, the douche-bag, the dumb person, the slutty one, the levelheaded one that gets killed first, etc. It sort of balanced out the film, but in ways it made it hard to follow because each character had such a strong personality that it was impossible to give each one their proper background story and still allow the plot to carry through at a bearable pace.
One of the things that was most intriguing about the previews (and motivated me to see the film) was its attempt at believability with the ways in which the "bad guys" are killed off. It appears as though the protagonists are all of a sudden in danger, not giving them much time to prepare to kill their antagonists and forcing them to be more creative in the ways they murder them.
Cons- I wasn't a huge fan of the relationship between the main characters. I'm not sure if it was a flaw in their on-screen chemistry, or poor direction, but it seemed very strained and not very believable. It, unfortunately, got worse as the movie continued which made it hard to enjoy because I found myself questioning their marriage more than I found myself rooting for them to survive.
The lack of common sense with Bosworth and Marsden was pretty astounding as well. This was particularly annoying due to the fact that the movie was trying so hard to be off the cuff, clever, and believable, but their stupidity sort of ruined it and got in the way.
Hands down the most frustrating thing about this movie is the LACK OF INFORMATION. There is little to nothing hinted at in this film that gives us any background information on ANY character, which is only so frustrating because the movie teases us with ambiguous past experiences, but doesn't go into any detail with any of them. Keeping in mind that this storyline was initially a book, then a movie, and now ANOTHER movie, I can only assume (and pray) that the book keeps these critical plot points that the movie deemed unnecessary,
And last but not least, there is a rape scene. Ick. I put this in the cons category because there was pretty much zero reason for them to include it in the film. I can tolerate these scenes when they move the story along by using the emotion of the scenario to fuel it, but this scene was not only uncomfortable to watch, but it was never (relevantly) brought up again in the plot. If you're going to use a rape scene, use it well, or don't use it at all.
Wrap up- Overall, this movie was a big let down. I'm hoping the book and first movie are better, but seeing this version has inhibited me from researching this story further due to its extreme sucky-ness.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Film Filter: Off- Final Destination 5
Film Filter: Off It's pretty much safe to say that you HAVE to see this film in 3-D. It definitely was not as terrible as its predecessor, and it has a very interesting ending.
Pros- For starters, the acting was much better in this film than in the one prior. The characters have a lot more interaction with each other, other than dying, than in most of the films.
Moving on to the 3-D aspect: if you're going to watch a movie in 3-D for entertainment value, this one is not a bad choice. Good 3-D movies either subtly enhance the film by working in the background, or overtly enhance the film by over-using the effect. This film is clearly the latter, but it works. The introduction was probably the coolest part in terms of 3-D effects, but the movie does a good job of inserting them without fail into most death scenes.
I liked that this film took a slightly different approach to the equation of cheating death. Instead of just switching the order, apparently you can take someone else's life and it will substitute the one you were supposed to give. I think this is a pretty clever concept, although not unique. White Noise: 2 also jumped on this bandwagon idea, but I have to say that it makes the plot more interesting due to the moral dilemmas that ensue.
The ending was by far the biggest redeeming quality of this film. I don't want to give too much away, but I will say my prior complaint of having "Final Destination 5" follow "THE Final Destination" is now null and void.
Cons- Despite the fact that I liked the twist regarding killing someone else to save yourself, there were some surrounding issues that plagued this concept. First off, the way it was brought up was pretty abrupt. The coroner from the first film just up and tells them that that's how they can cheat death. Wow, way to make them work for it. He didn't even give them a few guesses or anything, just blurted it right out. Not that any of them would have been intelligent enough to have figured it out on their own, but still. Secondly, once the characters catch wind of this, one of them goes bananas and tries to start killing one of his friends. I just find that a tad unrealistic. I mean, if you're going to kill someone find a bad guy, or a random person, but don't murder your friend!
Okay, I can't keep it in any longer, so ***SPOILER ALERT*** The coroner up and announces to the remaining victims that they can kill someone to get out of the arrangement. Lo and behold, we find out at the end of the film that this movie is actually a prequel to the original Final Destination, which begs the question: Why didn't anyone in the other 4 films figure it out?! Especially if creepy coroner-man blurted it out to the first group...why couldn't he just tell Devon Sawa too?
Wrap up- Not a bad movie, if you see it in 3-D. Sorry I ruined the ending for you, but it still might be worth...eh, probably not.
Pros- For starters, the acting was much better in this film than in the one prior. The characters have a lot more interaction with each other, other than dying, than in most of the films.
Moving on to the 3-D aspect: if you're going to watch a movie in 3-D for entertainment value, this one is not a bad choice. Good 3-D movies either subtly enhance the film by working in the background, or overtly enhance the film by over-using the effect. This film is clearly the latter, but it works. The introduction was probably the coolest part in terms of 3-D effects, but the movie does a good job of inserting them without fail into most death scenes.
I liked that this film took a slightly different approach to the equation of cheating death. Instead of just switching the order, apparently you can take someone else's life and it will substitute the one you were supposed to give. I think this is a pretty clever concept, although not unique. White Noise: 2 also jumped on this bandwagon idea, but I have to say that it makes the plot more interesting due to the moral dilemmas that ensue.
The ending was by far the biggest redeeming quality of this film. I don't want to give too much away, but I will say my prior complaint of having "Final Destination 5" follow "THE Final Destination" is now null and void.
Cons- Despite the fact that I liked the twist regarding killing someone else to save yourself, there were some surrounding issues that plagued this concept. First off, the way it was brought up was pretty abrupt. The coroner from the first film just up and tells them that that's how they can cheat death. Wow, way to make them work for it. He didn't even give them a few guesses or anything, just blurted it right out. Not that any of them would have been intelligent enough to have figured it out on their own, but still. Secondly, once the characters catch wind of this, one of them goes bananas and tries to start killing one of his friends. I just find that a tad unrealistic. I mean, if you're going to kill someone find a bad guy, or a random person, but don't murder your friend!
Okay, I can't keep it in any longer, so ***SPOILER ALERT*** The coroner up and announces to the remaining victims that they can kill someone to get out of the arrangement. Lo and behold, we find out at the end of the film that this movie is actually a prequel to the original Final Destination, which begs the question: Why didn't anyone in the other 4 films figure it out?! Especially if creepy coroner-man blurted it out to the first group...why couldn't he just tell Devon Sawa too?
Wrap up- Not a bad movie, if you see it in 3-D. Sorry I ruined the ending for you, but it still might be worth...eh, probably not.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Film Filter: Off- The Last Exorcism
Film Filter: Off- Having seen several films regarding exorcisms (as they happen to fit into my favorite, self generated genre of theological thrillers) I have to say this film went in a COMPLETELY different direction than I had expected it to.
Pros- It's a little tougher to dissect this film because of the nature of how it was meant to be perceived. As a documentary style film, the plot was slightly covered up by the necessity to remain true to a live filming. That being said, I have to commend the entire cast on making the film truly feel like a documentary. Whoever cast the film did a nice job of selecting actors that were lesser known to assist in the genuine feel of the film.
I found it refreshing that the film took a very different angle on the idea of exorcisms. Instead of a devout priest, or even an uncertain one, struggling to rid demons from a body for the greater good of the possessed's soul, this minister had a different approach. Instead, a minister struggling internally with his beliefs and faith seeks to prove that exorcisms are a mental disorder and can simply be cured with a "mind over matter" approach. The film then goes through the motions of his hoaxes and showmanship during the fake exorcism, the events that ensue, and his beliefs and opinions ultimately being questioned.
Throughout the process the viewer will find a very tongue-in-cheek sense of humor from the minister, as he is convinced that exorcisms are fake and ultimately mocks them. It ends up frequently having a bit more comedic and realistic feel than it does a spiritual one, which is refreshing for a film that is rooted in a concept that is very spiritual.
Cons- Coming with the territory of a documentary style filming is the inability to answer some questions. This was particularly frustrating towards the end of the film. As the film is attempting to be in real time, with one of the characters of the film portraying the camera person, we can only view what is going on from their perspective. Once action picks up and characters are running and/or dying, it becomes difficult to decipher the plot in the midst of the chaos.
I also thought it was a little ignorant of the priest to assume that the possessed girl, Nell, was relieved of the demons just based off of what she was saying. I thought it was painfully obvious that she was still under possession, mainly because she was referring to herself in the third person perspective. A-duh?
Wrap up- This movie can be summed up in one word: unexpected. It's really quite interesting, but I would really recommend it to those who have seen several exorcism oriented films, as it will probably make more sense.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Film Filter: Off- The Last House on the Left
Film Filter Off- This film is a Wes Craven remake of a 1972 version, which I have not seen. I watched the unrated version, and I would only recommend that to people who don't mind a very disturbing and graphic rape scene. Ick. In any case, the movie was actually very well done, and kept me guessing a lot of the time.
Pros- One of the things I thoroughly enjoyed about this movie was its ability to forward all of the information to the audience with no gaps, but in a well timed fashion. The information wasn't thrown in your face all at once, nor did you have to wait too long for any particular piece of information to surface. The solid pacing helped me get more into the film. They also did a very nice job of making connections to things brought up and referenced earlier in the film, like Mari's swimming experience and her necklace from her brother. This allowed some outside information to be revealed about the characters, but in a relevant way.
Without giving too much of the movie away, I'd like to mention the tense moment in which the antagonists were unknowingly seeking help from the family of the people they had assaulted. One of the best parts of this scenario, despite its pseudo-irony, is that once the family finds out who the people are, they play it cool instead of freaking out like most horror movies depict the characters doing. This also creates much more realistic conflict between them and the assailants.
Again, without revealing too much information, I would like to add that there is a great death involving a garbage disposal, AND a topless death scene as well. Sweet.
Cons- The rape scene, first and foremost. I won't say that it ruined the film, because in a purely story-telling fashion, it made it better by harnessing more disgusting, negative emotions toward the murderers, and more hopeful, positive emotions for the protagonists. Having that emotional spectrum to work with allowed me to become more emotionally involved in the film which, let's be honest, doesn't happen much in horror films. All that being said, it was not a pleasant scene to watch.
The only other negative aspect of this film, which had to happen for the plot to further, was the idiot friend suggesting to meet a stranger in a hotel room to smoke pot. The only reason it was irritating was because just about every character in the film was calm and rational, except for this dumb friend. Again, necessary for the story-line, but it was one of the few stereotypical moments of the film.
Wrap up- This film was very well done. I'm intrigued to see the original, but it's nice to see that a re-make of an older film did not crash and burn and is good on its own merit.
Pros- One of the things I thoroughly enjoyed about this movie was its ability to forward all of the information to the audience with no gaps, but in a well timed fashion. The information wasn't thrown in your face all at once, nor did you have to wait too long for any particular piece of information to surface. The solid pacing helped me get more into the film. They also did a very nice job of making connections to things brought up and referenced earlier in the film, like Mari's swimming experience and her necklace from her brother. This allowed some outside information to be revealed about the characters, but in a relevant way.
Without giving too much of the movie away, I'd like to mention the tense moment in which the antagonists were unknowingly seeking help from the family of the people they had assaulted. One of the best parts of this scenario, despite its pseudo-irony, is that once the family finds out who the people are, they play it cool instead of freaking out like most horror movies depict the characters doing. This also creates much more realistic conflict between them and the assailants.
Again, without revealing too much information, I would like to add that there is a great death involving a garbage disposal, AND a topless death scene as well. Sweet.
Cons- The rape scene, first and foremost. I won't say that it ruined the film, because in a purely story-telling fashion, it made it better by harnessing more disgusting, negative emotions toward the murderers, and more hopeful, positive emotions for the protagonists. Having that emotional spectrum to work with allowed me to become more emotionally involved in the film which, let's be honest, doesn't happen much in horror films. All that being said, it was not a pleasant scene to watch.
The only other negative aspect of this film, which had to happen for the plot to further, was the idiot friend suggesting to meet a stranger in a hotel room to smoke pot. The only reason it was irritating was because just about every character in the film was calm and rational, except for this dumb friend. Again, necessary for the story-line, but it was one of the few stereotypical moments of the film.
Wrap up- This film was very well done. I'm intrigued to see the original, but it's nice to see that a re-make of an older film did not crash and burn and is good on its own merit.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Film Filter: Off- The Secret
Film Filter: Off- For starters, this movie isn't really the typical genre I would review. It came up as a supernatural thriller and as an indie thriller, but be warned that it is neither frightening, nor terribly suspenseful.
Pros- This movie was not at all what I thought it would be like, which is a good thing. When the story line depicts a man's wife inhabiting the body of his daughter, I immediately thought of the awkward sexual tension that would result. Don't get me wrong, that happened at times, but in a tactful way and was not the focus of the film.
I thought that the relationships between the characters in this film appeared genuine and realistic. The dynamic between the husband and wife was both loving and sincere, which set a good tone for the story and gave the audience pieces of information to use later in the plot. I also thought the daughter's role of the angst-ridden teenager was perfectly played, and elaborated upon as well. Even though on the surface she's making poor decisions, the director does a good job of letting us figure out why those choices are made, and that she's actually not who she seems to be in a superficial sense. The acting ability of the young actress to play an adult woman trapped in a teenage girl's body was very believable, and I thought she did a phenomenal job playing both roles.
It was also interesting to see the interactions between the three main characters, and to see how all three of them are trapped in some fashion- one physically, one mentally, and one emotionally.
Cons- Other than not being scary, which is not an exclusively negative attribute, this film didn't have many cons. Due to its unique nature, it was highly unpredictable. This forced me to constantly be vigilant as to what was going on, so I wouldn't miss a critical moment. Each experience that Hannah went through as her daughter lent itself to a new lesson to learn about her life, so the plot didn't drag at all.
Wrap up- If you're into indie/supernatural thrillers that aren't edge of your seat scary, this would be a good movie for you. It was interesting, with good acting on all the leads' parts.
Pros- This movie was not at all what I thought it would be like, which is a good thing. When the story line depicts a man's wife inhabiting the body of his daughter, I immediately thought of the awkward sexual tension that would result. Don't get me wrong, that happened at times, but in a tactful way and was not the focus of the film.
I thought that the relationships between the characters in this film appeared genuine and realistic. The dynamic between the husband and wife was both loving and sincere, which set a good tone for the story and gave the audience pieces of information to use later in the plot. I also thought the daughter's role of the angst-ridden teenager was perfectly played, and elaborated upon as well. Even though on the surface she's making poor decisions, the director does a good job of letting us figure out why those choices are made, and that she's actually not who she seems to be in a superficial sense. The acting ability of the young actress to play an adult woman trapped in a teenage girl's body was very believable, and I thought she did a phenomenal job playing both roles.
It was also interesting to see the interactions between the three main characters, and to see how all three of them are trapped in some fashion- one physically, one mentally, and one emotionally.
Cons- Other than not being scary, which is not an exclusively negative attribute, this film didn't have many cons. Due to its unique nature, it was highly unpredictable. This forced me to constantly be vigilant as to what was going on, so I wouldn't miss a critical moment. Each experience that Hannah went through as her daughter lent itself to a new lesson to learn about her life, so the plot didn't drag at all.
Wrap up- If you're into indie/supernatural thrillers that aren't edge of your seat scary, this would be a good movie for you. It was interesting, with good acting on all the leads' parts.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Film Filter: Off- My Soul to Take
Film Filter: Off- This film was actually not as awful as one might think. It sort of reeks of Wes Craven's 1990's cliche horror style in part, but it delves a little bit deeper plot-wise than some of his former films.
Pros- First of all, this story line takes quite a few twists and turns, which I enjoy. It tends to deliver a vague concept or piece of information initially, but does a good job on following through and answering any and all questions. I also thought it was pretty unique to have a crazy person as the lead character, but not necessarily as the direct suspect either. I went through a healthy dilemma with myself before I ever really decided if I wanted to pity him or accuse him of the murders.
Another thing that this film does well is the background story on the legend of Ripper Day. A lot of the prerequisite knowledge happens in the intro, but what we don't get from that portion of the film is eloquently and flamboyantly told in a traditional story-telling manner commemorating the death of the town's former serial killer. It is appropriate within the context of the film, but also gives us a healthy amount of knowledge.
Another point of interest is that there is an extremely diverse group of characters as the Riverton Seven, particularly the spiritual girl, Penelope. I found this trait to be exclusively interesting, because not many horror films of the serial killer variety have a character who is deep rooted in religion. It didn't end up saving her in the end, but it was still intriguing.
Cons- As a typical 90's slasher film would have it, the deaths and how they occur in this film are both cheesy and abrupt. There seems to be no finesse or strategic planning in the murders, rather, they appear to come out of nowhere. I attribute a lot of this to the fact that they have seven characters they need to kill off to make the story work, but they had to fit in time for plot, dialogue, and story twists as well. No excuse, but I can empathize. Although this is only one flaw, it happens to occur pretty frequently as death is a common theme in most horror movies. The corny and sporadic nature of the deaths in the film don't completely destroy it, but it definitely leaves a lasting impression of the unfavorable variety.
Wrap up- Overall, this movie was way better than I thought it was going to be. Granted, that's not saying much as I had terrible expectations for it, but it was a pleasant surprise.
Pros- First of all, this story line takes quite a few twists and turns, which I enjoy. It tends to deliver a vague concept or piece of information initially, but does a good job on following through and answering any and all questions. I also thought it was pretty unique to have a crazy person as the lead character, but not necessarily as the direct suspect either. I went through a healthy dilemma with myself before I ever really decided if I wanted to pity him or accuse him of the murders.
Another thing that this film does well is the background story on the legend of Ripper Day. A lot of the prerequisite knowledge happens in the intro, but what we don't get from that portion of the film is eloquently and flamboyantly told in a traditional story-telling manner commemorating the death of the town's former serial killer. It is appropriate within the context of the film, but also gives us a healthy amount of knowledge.
Another point of interest is that there is an extremely diverse group of characters as the Riverton Seven, particularly the spiritual girl, Penelope. I found this trait to be exclusively interesting, because not many horror films of the serial killer variety have a character who is deep rooted in religion. It didn't end up saving her in the end, but it was still intriguing.
Cons- As a typical 90's slasher film would have it, the deaths and how they occur in this film are both cheesy and abrupt. There seems to be no finesse or strategic planning in the murders, rather, they appear to come out of nowhere. I attribute a lot of this to the fact that they have seven characters they need to kill off to make the story work, but they had to fit in time for plot, dialogue, and story twists as well. No excuse, but I can empathize. Although this is only one flaw, it happens to occur pretty frequently as death is a common theme in most horror movies. The corny and sporadic nature of the deaths in the film don't completely destroy it, but it definitely leaves a lasting impression of the unfavorable variety.
Wrap up- Overall, this movie was way better than I thought it was going to be. Granted, that's not saying much as I had terrible expectations for it, but it was a pleasant surprise.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Film Filter: Off- The Rite
Film Filter: Off- When I went to Blockbuster to rent this movie, the clerk told me it was really good, which I suppose was mistake number one: expectations. I was also thrilled that this movie fit into the little niche of a genre I dubbed as "theological thrillers", so I was even MORE pumped to watch it.
Pros- This movie does have a lot going for it. A lot of the cinematography is well done, with diverse screen shots and interesting scenery. I also enjoyed that, not unlike most church related films, there is a fair amount of symbolism. I wasn't quite sure about the symbolic nature of cats, so upon further research I found out that they symbolized the Underworld, and the supernatural. It was obviously very fitting, then, that felines roamed the exterior of the house where most of the film took place. There is also a reference to the crucifixion, when those about to become possessed regurgitate three nails. Lastly, the movie starts out with some information pertaining to St. Michael and how he drove the evil spirits out of heaven when Lucifer was cast out. It is no coincidence, then, that our disbelieving protagonist should be named: Michael. Michael also translates to: one who is like God in Hebrew.
Phew! On to acting...I think the young male lead does a nice job of being a skeptic, almost too good a job. In the same breath, I had heard through the grapevine that Anthony Hopkins was not terribly fond of his role in the film and although I can see why, he carried it out nicely.
Cons- This movie, in my humble opinion, had a few tragic flaws that made it inconsistent. All biases aside, I think it's a good film, but I have to be honest that how I feel about those few inconsistencies lost it some points.
First of all, when Michael is giving last rites to a dying woman, he performs prayer in Latin with some of THE WORST Latin diction I have heard. Perhaps it was planned to show his immaturity in the religion, as he was so young, but it irked the crap out of me.
Regarding plot, I felt that it was a little bit odd that Michael kept challenging everything about possession. I can understand that the movie was trying to portray him as the devil's advocate, but some of it got to be so illogical that it blew my mind. First of all, Michael is a man of the cloth. Despite his wishes to not become a priest, he had to have had some strong convictions in order to have made it as far as he did, so the fact that he can merely dismiss all of it because he changed his mind is a little odd to me. It's not like he was hearing about the exorcisms second or third hand either, he was witnessing them with his own eyes. I'd think seeing would be believing enough, even for someone NOT of the church, let alone to one who has taken on a calling that requires an innate amount of faith.
The next bit of beef I have with the plot is that Hopkins' character, Lucas, gets possessed. I found it a bit odd that a priest would become possessed...especially since so many films reference demons and spirits being attracted to those either weak in physical or spiritual nature. I had been counterattacked with the argument that it was God's plan to allow the possession to happen, so that Michael could understand his true calling. Although a plausible concept, I strongly doubt that God would go through such great lengths, and dangerous ones at that, to allow someone to understand their calling. I mean, if Michael is going to sit in the corner and make up excuses for everything he sees rather than believing it, I'm not sure anything is going to persuade him otherwise.
Wrap up- This movie is interesting, for sure. I was a little bummed because I was expecting more action in the actual exorcisms, and not so much dialogue and faith-building. As long as you're prepared to not be spooked (because it's not scary) or riveted on the edge of your seat (because there's no action) you should enjoy it.
Pros- This movie does have a lot going for it. A lot of the cinematography is well done, with diverse screen shots and interesting scenery. I also enjoyed that, not unlike most church related films, there is a fair amount of symbolism. I wasn't quite sure about the symbolic nature of cats, so upon further research I found out that they symbolized the Underworld, and the supernatural. It was obviously very fitting, then, that felines roamed the exterior of the house where most of the film took place. There is also a reference to the crucifixion, when those about to become possessed regurgitate three nails. Lastly, the movie starts out with some information pertaining to St. Michael and how he drove the evil spirits out of heaven when Lucifer was cast out. It is no coincidence, then, that our disbelieving protagonist should be named: Michael. Michael also translates to: one who is like God in Hebrew.
Phew! On to acting...I think the young male lead does a nice job of being a skeptic, almost too good a job. In the same breath, I had heard through the grapevine that Anthony Hopkins was not terribly fond of his role in the film and although I can see why, he carried it out nicely.
Cons- This movie, in my humble opinion, had a few tragic flaws that made it inconsistent. All biases aside, I think it's a good film, but I have to be honest that how I feel about those few inconsistencies lost it some points.
First of all, when Michael is giving last rites to a dying woman, he performs prayer in Latin with some of THE WORST Latin diction I have heard. Perhaps it was planned to show his immaturity in the religion, as he was so young, but it irked the crap out of me.
Regarding plot, I felt that it was a little bit odd that Michael kept challenging everything about possession. I can understand that the movie was trying to portray him as the devil's advocate, but some of it got to be so illogical that it blew my mind. First of all, Michael is a man of the cloth. Despite his wishes to not become a priest, he had to have had some strong convictions in order to have made it as far as he did, so the fact that he can merely dismiss all of it because he changed his mind is a little odd to me. It's not like he was hearing about the exorcisms second or third hand either, he was witnessing them with his own eyes. I'd think seeing would be believing enough, even for someone NOT of the church, let alone to one who has taken on a calling that requires an innate amount of faith.
The next bit of beef I have with the plot is that Hopkins' character, Lucas, gets possessed. I found it a bit odd that a priest would become possessed...especially since so many films reference demons and spirits being attracted to those either weak in physical or spiritual nature. I had been counterattacked with the argument that it was God's plan to allow the possession to happen, so that Michael could understand his true calling. Although a plausible concept, I strongly doubt that God would go through such great lengths, and dangerous ones at that, to allow someone to understand their calling. I mean, if Michael is going to sit in the corner and make up excuses for everything he sees rather than believing it, I'm not sure anything is going to persuade him otherwise.
Wrap up- This movie is interesting, for sure. I was a little bummed because I was expecting more action in the actual exorcisms, and not so much dialogue and faith-building. As long as you're prepared to not be spooked (because it's not scary) or riveted on the edge of your seat (because there's no action) you should enjoy it.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Film Filter: Off-The Haunting in Connecticut
Film Filter: Off- This movie is a tough one to fit into any kind of niche. It's not bad, but it's not great, although there are parts about it that I really liked. Hmmm...
Pros- I always have to give props to any movie that is based/inspired by true events. I also enjoyed the fact that they attempted to make the family as realistic as possible. Alcoholic father, stressed out mother, older son dying from cancer...they didn't attempt to make a picture perfect family OR a deranged one. Just a seemingly normal family. I also thought the film did a good job portraying the hardships and stresses involving having a child living with cancer. They showed the family uprooting themselves, the sickness of the son, and the trials and tribulations the family goes through both financially and emotionally. They managed to insert some history about iron, in that it would contain spirits, and correlated it to the use of iron bars in prison cells.
Cons- It's a ghost story, in many ways, and they really didn't take advantage of any scary pop-up moments. That, combined with the sob story of the son with cancer and the dad battling alcoholism, made it start to feel more like a depressing Lifetime movie than it actually did a horror flick. It's an odd situation, because I can't pinpoint a whole lot that was overtly bad about the film...but it left an odd taste when all was said and done. It was just a very "safe" film and didn't cross any thresholds or push the envelope in any way.
Wrap up- This movie is not bad, just kind of depressing and at times, boring.
Pros- I always have to give props to any movie that is based/inspired by true events. I also enjoyed the fact that they attempted to make the family as realistic as possible. Alcoholic father, stressed out mother, older son dying from cancer...they didn't attempt to make a picture perfect family OR a deranged one. Just a seemingly normal family. I also thought the film did a good job portraying the hardships and stresses involving having a child living with cancer. They showed the family uprooting themselves, the sickness of the son, and the trials and tribulations the family goes through both financially and emotionally. They managed to insert some history about iron, in that it would contain spirits, and correlated it to the use of iron bars in prison cells.
Cons- It's a ghost story, in many ways, and they really didn't take advantage of any scary pop-up moments. That, combined with the sob story of the son with cancer and the dad battling alcoholism, made it start to feel more like a depressing Lifetime movie than it actually did a horror flick. It's an odd situation, because I can't pinpoint a whole lot that was overtly bad about the film...but it left an odd taste when all was said and done. It was just a very "safe" film and didn't cross any thresholds or push the envelope in any way.
Wrap up- This movie is not bad, just kind of depressing and at times, boring.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Film Filter: Off- The Crazies
Film Filter: Off- So this film was not as bad as I had thought it would be. It was a unique concept that was executed (no pun intended!) pretty well. On a side note, I am REALLY starting to like Timothy Olyphant...
Pros- The film was well cast, which always helps. One of the tricks I use to determine the suckiness of a movie, particularly of the horror variety, is to see if I can identify any one of the cast members in a film I have previously seen. If the answer is no, it's usually going to be a flop, although there are sometimes exceptions. I also found it interesting that, instead of having a large core of characters that die off, they start with a small group that winds up finding more survivors as they traverse. Yes, eventually some of them die off, but it diversifies the amount and type of characters that interact in the film. I also enjoyed that Olyphant's character is adamant about going back to save his wife, while others are content with self-preservation. He makes a comment similar to, "Don't ask me why I am going back for my wife and I won't ask you why you aren't going back for yours" Deep, man. Really deep. But seriously, I liked the strong willed, fearless character that he portrays, and he does a great job with it. Lastly, I find it refreshing that when the Crazies die...they really die. There's nothing worse than an antagonist that is unkillable (Jeepers Creepers, anyone?). It gets old pretty fast.
Cons- The plot dragged occasionally, and there were some questions that were left dangling for quite some time before being answered. That's not a bad thing, really, but I am nosy and want to know everything that's going on. I also thought that the cinematography was rather dark. I know that most horror films lean toward this trend, but since most of this film takes place at night, it gets to be overbearing and some scenes are difficult to see for that reason. I also thought that Olyphant was a borderline SuperCop in that he was able to discern things in a very short period of time that I don't think most people would figure out. If they spent more time figuring out why things were happening toward the beginning, and less time running around trying to avoid death, the plot would have been a little more fluid.
Wrap up- This movie was pretty good, and definitely unique. The plot drags aren't extremely noticeable, and the cast does a good job of keeping the story interesting for the most part.
Pros- The film was well cast, which always helps. One of the tricks I use to determine the suckiness of a movie, particularly of the horror variety, is to see if I can identify any one of the cast members in a film I have previously seen. If the answer is no, it's usually going to be a flop, although there are sometimes exceptions. I also found it interesting that, instead of having a large core of characters that die off, they start with a small group that winds up finding more survivors as they traverse. Yes, eventually some of them die off, but it diversifies the amount and type of characters that interact in the film. I also enjoyed that Olyphant's character is adamant about going back to save his wife, while others are content with self-preservation. He makes a comment similar to, "Don't ask me why I am going back for my wife and I won't ask you why you aren't going back for yours" Deep, man. Really deep. But seriously, I liked the strong willed, fearless character that he portrays, and he does a great job with it. Lastly, I find it refreshing that when the Crazies die...they really die. There's nothing worse than an antagonist that is unkillable (Jeepers Creepers, anyone?). It gets old pretty fast.
Cons- The plot dragged occasionally, and there were some questions that were left dangling for quite some time before being answered. That's not a bad thing, really, but I am nosy and want to know everything that's going on. I also thought that the cinematography was rather dark. I know that most horror films lean toward this trend, but since most of this film takes place at night, it gets to be overbearing and some scenes are difficult to see for that reason. I also thought that Olyphant was a borderline SuperCop in that he was able to discern things in a very short period of time that I don't think most people would figure out. If they spent more time figuring out why things were happening toward the beginning, and less time running around trying to avoid death, the plot would have been a little more fluid.
Wrap up- This movie was pretty good, and definitely unique. The plot drags aren't extremely noticeable, and the cast does a good job of keeping the story interesting for the most part.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Film Filter: Off- The Perfect Getaway
Film Filter: Off- This movie really wasn't as wretched as I had anticipated. Not that that makes it a terribly good film, but certainly not awful.
Pros- It was nice to see a role reversal in both Steve Zahn and Mila Jovovich. Zahn is stereotypically cast as a quirky, idiotic sidekick, and in this film he portrays a nerdy, accomplished intellect. Jovovich is often cast as the bad-ass, fighter chick, and is instead cast as a sensitive, idealist. Interesting roles, and they both carried them out well. The movie also did a very good job of giving the viewer options as to who the killers were. If two couples were featured on the island, it's pretty clear who the suspects are, but three couples makes it more interesting. There is also a twist toward the end that I completely didn't see coming that made the movie more interesting, in that it explored more dimensions of all the main characters' acting abilities.
Cons- So once we realize who the killing couple is, there is an incessantly looooong flashback depicting how the killers went about their psychopathic routine. I won't say it wasn't interesting, and I daresay that there were some parts that were referenced to earlier in the film that made more sense after the flashback, but it was still really long (in movie-time, that is). Although the movie does have that spicy twist at the end, it doesn't really make up for the slow pacing throughout. Same scenery, same characters, same plot, same expectations, etc. Once the plot turned in a new direction, albeit an interesting one, it was almost too late to save the film from its neutrality.
Wrap up- I wasn't sure if I wanted to give away the ending, as doing so would have given me the opportunity tha give a much more thorough review. I figured I wouldn't though, because despite this movie not being that great, it's worth seeing if you've got nothing better to do.
Pros- It was nice to see a role reversal in both Steve Zahn and Mila Jovovich. Zahn is stereotypically cast as a quirky, idiotic sidekick, and in this film he portrays a nerdy, accomplished intellect. Jovovich is often cast as the bad-ass, fighter chick, and is instead cast as a sensitive, idealist. Interesting roles, and they both carried them out well. The movie also did a very good job of giving the viewer options as to who the killers were. If two couples were featured on the island, it's pretty clear who the suspects are, but three couples makes it more interesting. There is also a twist toward the end that I completely didn't see coming that made the movie more interesting, in that it explored more dimensions of all the main characters' acting abilities.
Cons- So once we realize who the killing couple is, there is an incessantly looooong flashback depicting how the killers went about their psychopathic routine. I won't say it wasn't interesting, and I daresay that there were some parts that were referenced to earlier in the film that made more sense after the flashback, but it was still really long (in movie-time, that is). Although the movie does have that spicy twist at the end, it doesn't really make up for the slow pacing throughout. Same scenery, same characters, same plot, same expectations, etc. Once the plot turned in a new direction, albeit an interesting one, it was almost too late to save the film from its neutrality.
Wrap up- I wasn't sure if I wanted to give away the ending, as doing so would have given me the opportunity tha give a much more thorough review. I figured I wouldn't though, because despite this movie not being that great, it's worth seeing if you've got nothing better to do.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Film Filter: Off - The Final Destination
Film Filter: Off- I'm sure you can adequately guess that this film follows the same plot sequence as its three predecessors. I'm not quite sure why this one was even made in the first place, as no real new information is introduced that is of any importance. Oh wait, it's coming back to me...it was in 3-D.
Pros: Not a whole lot. I didn't view it in 3-D, but that's about the only thing that would have saved this film. In all honesty, they did some things right that I have to give them credit for. Before anyone was killed off in the film, they laid out so many possibilities for death that it was tough to decipher which cause would be the actual one. It was also interesting that they showed most death scenes in an x-ray shot fashion. It spiced things up a bit, however not quite enough to redeem the movie into any type of positive category.
Cons: It was a 3-D movie folks, so it's no surprise that a lot of the death scenes accentuate the gimmicky quality of the 3-D industry. No shame there but like I said, it's about the only thing the movie has going for it. Also, there are waaaaay too many similar looking brunettes in this film! I'm not a hair color segregist (is that a real word?) but could they have inserted some more diversely hair-colored folk? Nothing against brunettes, but when they're all introduced at once with not very much background knowledge presented, my feeble brain starts to mix them all up. One of the other negative things about this film, and all of these films really, is the lack of common sense in the group of main characters. So this young man realizes he can see a death before it's about to happen, and instead of saying "Dude, let's get the #$!% out of here and I'll explain later!" he calmly points out who's going to die and in what order. Brilliant. Just the type of guy I'd like to keep around.
Wrap up- This is a good date movie if you go to see it in 3-D. Then, on the way home, you can chat each other up about how much it sucked. That way, no matter how bad the date is, you'll at least have one thing in common- disliking this film. I guess I'm being really harsh, but if you're going to make a movie in 3-D, at least make it so that those of us who can't view it in that manner aren't jeopardized from getting any entertainment value out of it. Also, I hate to break it to you but apparently this is NOT the final destination after all. Guess we should have thought that one through a little better before we titled it, eh? We must all wait on the edge of our seats until the highly anticipated Final Destination 5 hits theaters. It looks more promising than this one, at least.
Pros: Not a whole lot. I didn't view it in 3-D, but that's about the only thing that would have saved this film. In all honesty, they did some things right that I have to give them credit for. Before anyone was killed off in the film, they laid out so many possibilities for death that it was tough to decipher which cause would be the actual one. It was also interesting that they showed most death scenes in an x-ray shot fashion. It spiced things up a bit, however not quite enough to redeem the movie into any type of positive category.
Cons: It was a 3-D movie folks, so it's no surprise that a lot of the death scenes accentuate the gimmicky quality of the 3-D industry. No shame there but like I said, it's about the only thing the movie has going for it. Also, there are waaaaay too many similar looking brunettes in this film! I'm not a hair color segregist (is that a real word?) but could they have inserted some more diversely hair-colored folk? Nothing against brunettes, but when they're all introduced at once with not very much background knowledge presented, my feeble brain starts to mix them all up. One of the other negative things about this film, and all of these films really, is the lack of common sense in the group of main characters. So this young man realizes he can see a death before it's about to happen, and instead of saying "Dude, let's get the #$!% out of here and I'll explain later!" he calmly points out who's going to die and in what order. Brilliant. Just the type of guy I'd like to keep around.
Wrap up- This is a good date movie if you go to see it in 3-D. Then, on the way home, you can chat each other up about how much it sucked. That way, no matter how bad the date is, you'll at least have one thing in common- disliking this film. I guess I'm being really harsh, but if you're going to make a movie in 3-D, at least make it so that those of us who can't view it in that manner aren't jeopardized from getting any entertainment value out of it. Also, I hate to break it to you but apparently this is NOT the final destination after all. Guess we should have thought that one through a little better before we titled it, eh? We must all wait on the edge of our seats until the highly anticipated Final Destination 5 hits theaters. It looks more promising than this one, at least.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Film Filter: Off - Priest
Film Filter: Off- I went in to this movie not really knowing a whole lot about it, which I think is a pretty solid approach. No expectations going into a film usually leaves a greater chance for me to be into the movie, and this one was no exception.
Pros- Apparently this film is based off of a graphic novel, which is not a new trend in the land of cinemas these days. My main concern is that graphic novels of notoriety like Superman, Spiderman and Batman are fairly well known throughout the masses, which allows the directors to sort of jump right in to the plot, as they have the luxury of knowing most of their audience is aware of what's going on. With Priest, however, I'm not sure there was as large a following of the graphic novel and to be honest, I didn't even know it existed. That being said, I think they did a fantastic job of keeping the audience up to speed without "story telling" to us and making us feel like imbeciles. They introduced a little of the plot in an overly grotesque graphic novel-like intro, which I found to be very successful. They also did a nice job of intermittently answering our questions along the way without taking away from the action in the story.
Next was the fact that the film was in 3-D. I will have to honestly tell you that I would have enjoyed the movie just about the same if it weren't in 3-D, which you should be ecstatic about. It was not a gimmicky 3-D ploy, but an enhancement of the scenery and the setting. Most of the time, I didn't even realize it was in 3-D, other than the ashes in the city seemed to float around in the theater. Once you got used to it, much like Avatar, you forgot about it and just enjoyed the movie.
The use of vampires in both movies and literature often varies, but many concepts also stay the same. For example, many people have recently portrayed vampires as sensual, un-dead human beings, with an unearthly sense of beauty and mystique about them. (i.e. Twilight, Interview with the Vampire, Queen of the Damned, Brahm Stoker's Dracula, etc.) Priest took the idea of the vampire and took it a direction not yet seen on film. I won't go into explicit detail for fear of ruining the aesthetics for you if you see the film, but let's just say THESE vampires won't be seductively luring me into a garden with their sensual voices so they can suck my blood. They also toyed with the concept of infection, and flipped in my mind everything I knew about vampires. I kind of got irritated with it initially, and then I realized vampires weren't real and that it wasn't their fault that everyone and their brother adopted the same idea of them as sensual, human-like creatures.
Lastly I am going to say the way that Cathedral City looks is SWEET. They did a great job with all of the landscaping and settings; whether or not they were CG became irrelevant because they looked awesome. Also, the score that went alongside the movie was very well done, too. I don't often listen to the music accompanying a movie as succinctly as I should, but this soundtrack stuck out to me as wildly appropriate, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Cons- Biggest con- one super cheesy line, emitted by who I affectionately refer to as Cowboy. His character, in general, left much to be desired. He was kind of awkward, and mildly dumb to boot. Not that Lucy should be ungrateful to him for trying to save her, but God help her if she gets into trouble again and Cowboy is her only hope.
Wrap-up- Very good movie! I highly recommend it, even if you can't view it in 3-D. You're not missing much, and that's not a slam, it's just the truth.
Pros- Apparently this film is based off of a graphic novel, which is not a new trend in the land of cinemas these days. My main concern is that graphic novels of notoriety like Superman, Spiderman and Batman are fairly well known throughout the masses, which allows the directors to sort of jump right in to the plot, as they have the luxury of knowing most of their audience is aware of what's going on. With Priest, however, I'm not sure there was as large a following of the graphic novel and to be honest, I didn't even know it existed. That being said, I think they did a fantastic job of keeping the audience up to speed without "story telling" to us and making us feel like imbeciles. They introduced a little of the plot in an overly grotesque graphic novel-like intro, which I found to be very successful. They also did a nice job of intermittently answering our questions along the way without taking away from the action in the story.
Next was the fact that the film was in 3-D. I will have to honestly tell you that I would have enjoyed the movie just about the same if it weren't in 3-D, which you should be ecstatic about. It was not a gimmicky 3-D ploy, but an enhancement of the scenery and the setting. Most of the time, I didn't even realize it was in 3-D, other than the ashes in the city seemed to float around in the theater. Once you got used to it, much like Avatar, you forgot about it and just enjoyed the movie.
The use of vampires in both movies and literature often varies, but many concepts also stay the same. For example, many people have recently portrayed vampires as sensual, un-dead human beings, with an unearthly sense of beauty and mystique about them. (i.e. Twilight, Interview with the Vampire, Queen of the Damned, Brahm Stoker's Dracula, etc.) Priest took the idea of the vampire and took it a direction not yet seen on film. I won't go into explicit detail for fear of ruining the aesthetics for you if you see the film, but let's just say THESE vampires won't be seductively luring me into a garden with their sensual voices so they can suck my blood. They also toyed with the concept of infection, and flipped in my mind everything I knew about vampires. I kind of got irritated with it initially, and then I realized vampires weren't real and that it wasn't their fault that everyone and their brother adopted the same idea of them as sensual, human-like creatures.
Lastly I am going to say the way that Cathedral City looks is SWEET. They did a great job with all of the landscaping and settings; whether or not they were CG became irrelevant because they looked awesome. Also, the score that went alongside the movie was very well done, too. I don't often listen to the music accompanying a movie as succinctly as I should, but this soundtrack stuck out to me as wildly appropriate, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Cons- Biggest con- one super cheesy line, emitted by who I affectionately refer to as Cowboy. His character, in general, left much to be desired. He was kind of awkward, and mildly dumb to boot. Not that Lucy should be ungrateful to him for trying to save her, but God help her if she gets into trouble again and Cowboy is her only hope.
Wrap-up- Very good movie! I highly recommend it, even if you can't view it in 3-D. You're not missing much, and that's not a slam, it's just the truth.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Film Filter: Off - White Noise 2: The Light
Film Filter: Off- So if you're like me, you hear the title of this film and think..."okay, the first one wasn't GREAT, so this is going to be worse." I still don't really know what made me watch it (oh yeah, Katee Sackhoff!) but I am so glad I did because I was pleasantly surprised.
Pros- You figured out my first incentive...Katee. It's not that I have a woman-crush on her, but she was the lead female actress in Battlestar Galactica, so I think she is uber talented and haven't seen her in anything except BSG. You see the intrigue? Next interesting concept is that Nathan Fillion was the male lead opposite her in the film. Guess what he stars in? Firefly, which I admit I have never seen, but it's another sci-fi series, so I would probably enjoy it.
ANYWAY, I started to watch the film, and was instantly hooked. It started out with the text on the screen describing statistics on near-death experiences and then cut away intermittently to horrific and ghastly images...it was brilliant! You don't want to look because the images are scary, but you have to because the information is crucial. Well played. Like Insidious, this movie had very unexpected and crazy-scary pop-up moments. They were well-executed, and not overdone, so bonus points for that. I also really enjoyed the plot of this movie as it ties in a lot of spirituality and other worldly concepts to the story. I also liked that it initially portrayed positives and negatives of Abe's condition after his failed suicide. He was able to see when people were about to die, and thus was able to save their life. The film, however, did not neglect to show the downside of having supernatural powers, hence the creepy, mutant-faced spirits that often haunt him throughout the film.
Lastly and most importantly, as this is my first review to noticeably embrace this concept, was the symbolism included in the cinematography.
I already had a good idea what the color red symbolized, but I researched it a little further to get more specifics. There were a few shots in the movie that not only included the color red, but innately focused on it. A dark colored scene with a red neon light flashing in the background, a scene at night with a dark building and a red jeep pulling up. Even without the use of red, there was a tiny instance in a scene where a neon light in the shape of a cross is hidden in the background. I have to say, I was pretty impressed that I even noticed these things, since I have a tendency to be aloof at times, but I really appreciated and valued the director's attention to detail. The only reason I even thought to take notice is that it is also done in the movie "The Sixth Sense", but it's still a very clever concept. Kudos!
Cons- This, for once, is the short list- hooray! First of all, it is not news to you that I really like Katee Sackhoff...but her hair in this movie is all kinds of wrong. It looks cute, but she's got these goofy, overly bright extensions in a variety of colors. When mixed with her platinum blonde hair, it looks like she let a first grade art class go to town with colored markers in her hair- not super flattering.
The next thing that was odd to me was the manner in which one of the characters' lives is saved. This girl turns around and accidentally spills this man's coffee all over him when she bumps into him. He starts getting so pissed that he makes lewd comments to her, insinuates she's a hooker, and slaps her ass as she turns around. I mean, really, that's like the bare minimum wrath someone should incur for doing such a blasphemous, horrendous deed. I'd have made her lick it up off the ground and then kicked her. Seriously? I thought the guy was a weeeeeeee bit extreme, but it's a movie, so I guess that has to happen every once and again.
Also slightly irksome was the ending's pace. Maybe I'm just slow on the uptake, but a lot of things happened in such a short period of time that I couldn't really keep them straight. I like that the ending didn't go exactly where you thoguht it would, but I had a hard time following it in ways. Could just be me, though.
And last but not least was my least favorite part...I literally scoffed out loud. Katee's character is widowed from a man who was a music teacher- kick ass job. Anyway, she is describing him and his work to Abe and says "Yeah, I loved his approach with kids. He didn't bother with any of that Do-Re-Mi crap." GASP! For those of you who know me, you can imagine my disapproval. Also, they showed his students singing a benefit in his honor, and let me tell you- kids that age DON'T collectively sing that well. Unless they're British.
Wrap-up- Great movie! I was so pleasantly surprised by it, and am glad I watched it. One of my favorite parts of having this blog is that I now watch horror movies whether I think they will suck or not, which gives me the opportunity to be pleasantly surprised every once in awhile by a diamond in the rough like this one.
Pros- You figured out my first incentive...Katee. It's not that I have a woman-crush on her, but she was the lead female actress in Battlestar Galactica, so I think she is uber talented and haven't seen her in anything except BSG. You see the intrigue? Next interesting concept is that Nathan Fillion was the male lead opposite her in the film. Guess what he stars in? Firefly, which I admit I have never seen, but it's another sci-fi series, so I would probably enjoy it.
ANYWAY, I started to watch the film, and was instantly hooked. It started out with the text on the screen describing statistics on near-death experiences and then cut away intermittently to horrific and ghastly images...it was brilliant! You don't want to look because the images are scary, but you have to because the information is crucial. Well played. Like Insidious, this movie had very unexpected and crazy-scary pop-up moments. They were well-executed, and not overdone, so bonus points for that. I also really enjoyed the plot of this movie as it ties in a lot of spirituality and other worldly concepts to the story. I also liked that it initially portrayed positives and negatives of Abe's condition after his failed suicide. He was able to see when people were about to die, and thus was able to save their life. The film, however, did not neglect to show the downside of having supernatural powers, hence the creepy, mutant-faced spirits that often haunt him throughout the film.
Lastly and most importantly, as this is my first review to noticeably embrace this concept, was the symbolism included in the cinematography.
"According to Henry Dreyfus, it is popularly felt that red, the color of blood and fire, represents life and vitality." http://www.three-musketeers.net/mike/colors.html
I already had a good idea what the color red symbolized, but I researched it a little further to get more specifics. There were a few shots in the movie that not only included the color red, but innately focused on it. A dark colored scene with a red neon light flashing in the background, a scene at night with a dark building and a red jeep pulling up. Even without the use of red, there was a tiny instance in a scene where a neon light in the shape of a cross is hidden in the background. I have to say, I was pretty impressed that I even noticed these things, since I have a tendency to be aloof at times, but I really appreciated and valued the director's attention to detail. The only reason I even thought to take notice is that it is also done in the movie "The Sixth Sense", but it's still a very clever concept. Kudos!
Cons- This, for once, is the short list- hooray! First of all, it is not news to you that I really like Katee Sackhoff...but her hair in this movie is all kinds of wrong. It looks cute, but she's got these goofy, overly bright extensions in a variety of colors. When mixed with her platinum blonde hair, it looks like she let a first grade art class go to town with colored markers in her hair- not super flattering.
The next thing that was odd to me was the manner in which one of the characters' lives is saved. This girl turns around and accidentally spills this man's coffee all over him when she bumps into him. He starts getting so pissed that he makes lewd comments to her, insinuates she's a hooker, and slaps her ass as she turns around. I mean, really, that's like the bare minimum wrath someone should incur for doing such a blasphemous, horrendous deed. I'd have made her lick it up off the ground and then kicked her. Seriously? I thought the guy was a weeeeeeee bit extreme, but it's a movie, so I guess that has to happen every once and again.
Also slightly irksome was the ending's pace. Maybe I'm just slow on the uptake, but a lot of things happened in such a short period of time that I couldn't really keep them straight. I like that the ending didn't go exactly where you thoguht it would, but I had a hard time following it in ways. Could just be me, though.
And last but not least was my least favorite part...I literally scoffed out loud. Katee's character is widowed from a man who was a music teacher- kick ass job. Anyway, she is describing him and his work to Abe and says "Yeah, I loved his approach with kids. He didn't bother with any of that Do-Re-Mi crap." GASP! For those of you who know me, you can imagine my disapproval. Also, they showed his students singing a benefit in his honor, and let me tell you- kids that age DON'T collectively sing that well. Unless they're British.
Wrap-up- Great movie! I was so pleasantly surprised by it, and am glad I watched it. One of my favorite parts of having this blog is that I now watch horror movies whether I think they will suck or not, which gives me the opportunity to be pleasantly surprised every once in awhile by a diamond in the rough like this one.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Film Filter: Off - Case 39
Film Filter: Off- I have to say that this movie was pretty decent. It could be that I went into the film with zero expectations, as I had never heard of it, but I'd like to think that it was a pretty good film regardless.
Pros- I'm not going to say it was good or bad, but INTERESTING that Bradley Cooper played a serious role. Okay, it was kind of bad, but I appreciate that he did it. He is sort of type-cast by his good looking, nonchalant, douche-baggy, funny guy roles, which he can do well with. In this film he plays a serious counselor working with children, with no douche-baggery as part of the role. Again, not bad, but weird as hell. Lest we not mention that if my counselor looked like THAT I would have...well, never mind. (insert blushing emoticon)
I will also say that the plot was pretty unique. While possessed persons/children is a popular concept, this one is executed well and has a few twists along the way. I also thought that they cast Lily very well. She was able to portray all aspects of the personality cleanly, and believably. It was also interesting that Lily was kept around longer in the story than we would expect...I don't necessarily think it was the BEST plot direction, as it verged on dragging out the story, but it was unexpected for sure.
Cons- Maybe I'm just a tramp of horror flicks, but I saw a lot of the twists and surprises coming. Nowadays, it is quite challenging to make a good thriller or scary movie that's NOT predictable in some fashion, so I guess I can give them props for trying.
One of the things I came out of this film confused about, though, was the way they wanted Lily to be portrayed. As I said, the young actress does a remarkable job, but her character- to me- is inconsistent. So she's a demon. She's not a little girl possessed by a demon, she straight up IS a demon. She starts by finding a vulnerable person (Zellweger) to latch on to, and then kills everyone around them by accessing their deepest fears and killing them via their greatest nightmare. She does this because she "wants to be loved" and have a family. A family that she can manipulate because if they don't obey her every wish, someone they love will die. So, she's a demon who likes to murder and terrorize, but she "just wants to be loved" and keeps Zellweger around to make her feel like a real child in a stable family.
Okay...choose your personality already! I can see this perspective if they were showing the inner turmoil of a young girl, unwillingly possessed by an unearthly force, but it has already been established in the story that she is who she is, and she has no problems with that. Perhaps her intent in vocalizing her desires to be "normal" and "loved" are just meant to be conniving and contradictory, which would make sense if that was how they were directed, but it's hard to tell.
Lastly, I'm going to again bring up my distaste for movies that don't adequately tie up loose ends. Zellweger's mother gets brought up several times in the story, and there is even a vivid flashback at the end involving her. We don't, however, get enough information about her and what happened to successfully understand what's going on in the flashback and why her mother's personality is so strange. It gets touched upon, but again, not enough for my liking.
Wrap-up- Overall, this is a good movie. There aren't any wow factors, or noticeable things that make it stand out from the thriller crowd, but it's pretty good.
Pros- I'm not going to say it was good or bad, but INTERESTING that Bradley Cooper played a serious role. Okay, it was kind of bad, but I appreciate that he did it. He is sort of type-cast by his good looking, nonchalant, douche-baggy, funny guy roles, which he can do well with. In this film he plays a serious counselor working with children, with no douche-baggery as part of the role. Again, not bad, but weird as hell. Lest we not mention that if my counselor looked like THAT I would have...well, never mind. (insert blushing emoticon)
I will also say that the plot was pretty unique. While possessed persons/children is a popular concept, this one is executed well and has a few twists along the way. I also thought that they cast Lily very well. She was able to portray all aspects of the personality cleanly, and believably. It was also interesting that Lily was kept around longer in the story than we would expect...I don't necessarily think it was the BEST plot direction, as it verged on dragging out the story, but it was unexpected for sure.
Cons- Maybe I'm just a tramp of horror flicks, but I saw a lot of the twists and surprises coming. Nowadays, it is quite challenging to make a good thriller or scary movie that's NOT predictable in some fashion, so I guess I can give them props for trying.
One of the things I came out of this film confused about, though, was the way they wanted Lily to be portrayed. As I said, the young actress does a remarkable job, but her character- to me- is inconsistent. So she's a demon. She's not a little girl possessed by a demon, she straight up IS a demon. She starts by finding a vulnerable person (Zellweger) to latch on to, and then kills everyone around them by accessing their deepest fears and killing them via their greatest nightmare. She does this because she "wants to be loved" and have a family. A family that she can manipulate because if they don't obey her every wish, someone they love will die. So, she's a demon who likes to murder and terrorize, but she "just wants to be loved" and keeps Zellweger around to make her feel like a real child in a stable family.
Okay...choose your personality already! I can see this perspective if they were showing the inner turmoil of a young girl, unwillingly possessed by an unearthly force, but it has already been established in the story that she is who she is, and she has no problems with that. Perhaps her intent in vocalizing her desires to be "normal" and "loved" are just meant to be conniving and contradictory, which would make sense if that was how they were directed, but it's hard to tell.
Lastly, I'm going to again bring up my distaste for movies that don't adequately tie up loose ends. Zellweger's mother gets brought up several times in the story, and there is even a vivid flashback at the end involving her. We don't, however, get enough information about her and what happened to successfully understand what's going on in the flashback and why her mother's personality is so strange. It gets touched upon, but again, not enough for my liking.
Wrap-up- Overall, this is a good movie. There aren't any wow factors, or noticeable things that make it stand out from the thriller crowd, but it's pretty good.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Film Filter: Off - Splice
Film Filter: Off – Well, I have to say that the plot and even the beginning of this film are pretty intriguing. Geneticists splicing the genes of several animals and combining them together for medical purposes sounds like an ideal background for a crazy, mutated, evil monster to be created. So, bonus points for creativity.
Pros- Well, this list is about as short as it can get, I’m afraid. Other than the unique story line and pseudo-interesting beginning, this movie really blows. One of the few pros found in this film was that the genetic scientists all sported Bieber hair and bedazzled their lab coats with bad-ass patches. We have to assume that this movie was developed by someone who was probably ridiculed in high-school for being a nerd, because I don’t know too many other personalities that would try so hard to get geneticists to look like rock-stars. Eh, it’s their fantasy world, so whatever. The second positive note derived from the movie is only appreciated if it’s viewed in a specific manner: wide screen. Why, might you ask? Well, wide screen TV +Adrien Brody = a somewhat proportionate nose.
Cons- I really cannot conceive of a way to relay the cons of this movie to you accurately without giving you a short and sweet play-by-play, so SPOILER ALERT!!
Alright, here is the rough and dirty version: Two lead geneticists (who are dating) want to splice human DNA in with animals to help cure diseases. Boss says no. Girl does it anyway because she’s dumb. She uses her own DNA. Monster baby alien thing comes alive and is part human/chicken/rabbit/unicorn/manbearpig and many other animals. Scientists pity it, take care of it, and give it a queer name- Dren. Dren grows up as a girl, learns quickly, watches the two scientists boink, and then has a crush on Brody’s character. Meanwhile they discover that when their female hybrid animals mate, they become male and start to kill each other. So Brody, being the genius that he is, boinks Dren because he can’t keep it in his pants. Eventually Dren escapes, becomes a man, and tries to kill everyone with a pretty decent success rate. I will not mention the horridly disgusting twist at the end that makes you want to vomit- you can feel free to check that out yourself.
Sooo, what have we learned here? 1) Don’t treat your experiments like your children. It’s just creepy. 2) Don’t treat your experiment like a cheap hooker, Brody. It’s just wrong…and creepy at the same time. 3) Don’t be surprised if your confused, sex-crazy genetic experiment wants to kill you and all of your friends after you’re done humiliating it.
Okay, in all seriousness, this movie is whacked. I think the first problem occurs in that they opted to draw on the pity of Dren for the first 80% of the movie instead of taking the easy way out and making her scary and unstable to begin with. I’m sure this film had some odd expectation of exploring the human psyche and how we need to be sensitive on how we mesh science with morality, but it didn’t succeed. If that was the point, they should have continued some aspect of the sympathy factor for the remaining 20% of the film. (Note: the only other time I have successfully seen a character go from cute and pathetic to scary and malevolent in a short period of time was Gremlins, and let’s be honest, you can’t replicate Gremlins. It’s a classic.) They instead took the stupid choice and played with the audience’s emotions by turning them from pitiful to disgusted in not enough of a time frame to adjust. I can (sort of) see why they did what they did, but there is no shame in following a standard plot formula to make a film work. I’d rather see the same good plot outline with different characters that succeeds in being both scary and a quality film than a story that deviates from that in attempts to stand out, and thus does so in a crap-tastic way.
Wrap up-This movie is really just messed up. It had potential to be a success, but I think the directors had good raw material and took it in a weird direction which left the audience wondering. The movie is not poignant, scary, reflective, morality-driven, or thought provoking. It’s just…weird.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Film Filter: Off - Devil
Film Filter: Off - Devil So this is the first film I reviewed that received the highest rating, and a lot of that has to do with my preference. I have developed a category of film that I have become enthralled with entitled "theological thrillers", of which this film is a part. I find that movies that have some sort of satanic, apocalyptic, or possessed theme tend to be more successful in frightening me, so pardon me if I may be a little partial toward them.
Pros: So when I described this movie to many people who haven't seen it, I heard a lot of "Oh, it's M. Night Shyamalan, so I'm not really interested." I can't say I completely disagree with this sentiment, but I would like to reassure you that this film does not have an overt Shyamalan stamp on it. Yes, you can see similarities in style if you look closely enough, but I think most people have a preconcieved notion of what the film will be like because his name is on it. If the viewer was not aware of Shyamalan as director, I don't think they would be pressed to think it reminded them of his work or that it followed themes and conviluted twists that other movies he has directed contain.
That being said, he does an excellent job of setting up the story, from beginning to end. He also does a great job of not making the few twists that occur in the storyline too far out in left field. It is a predictable enough film to be able to see where it is headed, but it leaves enough gaps in the story line to leave you wondering. Those gaps end up being resolved, however, leaving no loose ends hanging. One of the things that irks me the most in complex horror movies (which is why Insidious did not receive my star rating) is the mentioning of background story information that the viewer is not aware of...that never gets mentioned again. I tend to be very prone to details, so if I hear even the slightest mention of something not occurring right in front of me, I want to know more about it. A good story, be it horror or other genre, does not leave loose ends and this film does a good job of fitting all of that goodness into one, tight 80 minute package. It's about quality, not quantity people.
I don't really have too many cons for this movie. Yes, I could nit-pick about the acting ability of some of the characters- and I will say that you need a strong cast if you are working with a small core of main characters stuck in a central location- but it's not really worth it to me. No one did a poor job, and at the end of the day he cast the film well by using lesser known actors. Perhaps they didn't portray a character as well as some of Hollywood's more experienced, but because of this they all fell to roughly the same level of ability, allowing them not to become overshadowed by each other. This story was not made to (at least in the elevator cast) have a distinct hero, villain, or stand-out in any way. The less attetntion that gets drawn to them, the less apt the audience is to successfully discover the possessed individual. So, the con ultimately becomes a pro, and the world is right again.
I would highly recommend this movie if you, like I, enjoy a good theological thriller.
Pros: So when I described this movie to many people who haven't seen it, I heard a lot of "Oh, it's M. Night Shyamalan, so I'm not really interested." I can't say I completely disagree with this sentiment, but I would like to reassure you that this film does not have an overt Shyamalan stamp on it. Yes, you can see similarities in style if you look closely enough, but I think most people have a preconcieved notion of what the film will be like because his name is on it. If the viewer was not aware of Shyamalan as director, I don't think they would be pressed to think it reminded them of his work or that it followed themes and conviluted twists that other movies he has directed contain.
That being said, he does an excellent job of setting up the story, from beginning to end. He also does a great job of not making the few twists that occur in the storyline too far out in left field. It is a predictable enough film to be able to see where it is headed, but it leaves enough gaps in the story line to leave you wondering. Those gaps end up being resolved, however, leaving no loose ends hanging. One of the things that irks me the most in complex horror movies (which is why Insidious did not receive my star rating) is the mentioning of background story information that the viewer is not aware of...that never gets mentioned again. I tend to be very prone to details, so if I hear even the slightest mention of something not occurring right in front of me, I want to know more about it. A good story, be it horror or other genre, does not leave loose ends and this film does a good job of fitting all of that goodness into one, tight 80 minute package. It's about quality, not quantity people.
I don't really have too many cons for this movie. Yes, I could nit-pick about the acting ability of some of the characters- and I will say that you need a strong cast if you are working with a small core of main characters stuck in a central location- but it's not really worth it to me. No one did a poor job, and at the end of the day he cast the film well by using lesser known actors. Perhaps they didn't portray a character as well as some of Hollywood's more experienced, but because of this they all fell to roughly the same level of ability, allowing them not to become overshadowed by each other. This story was not made to (at least in the elevator cast) have a distinct hero, villain, or stand-out in any way. The less attetntion that gets drawn to them, the less apt the audience is to successfully discover the possessed individual. So, the con ultimately becomes a pro, and the world is right again.
I would highly recommend this movie if you, like I, enjoy a good theological thriller.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Film Filter: Off - Twisted
Film Filter: Off- So this is the first blog of the thriller persuasion, deviating slightly from the horror genre. I cannot pass up an Ashley Judd film, though, and I did state that this was a horror/thriller blog, so sue me.
Pros- Well, let's not beat around the bush, the biggest positive note in this film is that Ashley Judd is kind of a ho'. I mean that with all due respect, but how many countless movies has she been in where she's been abused, battered, cheated on, or hurt- it's about time she becomes the queen of one night stands with strangers! This proves to be a troublesome hobby when all the men she has slept with start coming up dead. Whoops. As a cop with a deceased serial killer for a father, you can only guess who they're pointing the finger at. This is a good thriller because the plot moves along rather quickly, and while it's fun to guess who the next dead ex will be, it is tougher to guess who the one responsible is. Andy Garcia does a nice job as the calm, collected partner, while Samuel L. Jackson also does well in his supporting role. Again, let's not forget my love of themes when it comes to murder. I don't care how simplistic, it's always nice to have a themed motive in a murder flick- it provides a means on which to formulate guesses on who is responsible, and it adds a new depth to the plot. This time, it happens to be former lovers of Ashley Judd, which proves to be a very personal, and tough trend for her to discover.
Cons- Although Judd portrays an excellent inspector, she tends to also portray a fairly dim girlfriend. The men she's dated that get enough screen time to hear a story about them are both arrogant and aggressive. For someone who's supposed to have great character perception in her job, she sure doesn't have it on the dating field. She also lacks in the brains department when it comes time to settle in to bed every night, and her evening glass of wine causes her to drop to the floor and pass out. It's a new wine called Sauvignon Rohypnol, and it's a dry red. If it were me, I'd have joined AA, and quick. Not that she abuses alcohol in the movie, but if my wine did that to me I'd probably stop drinking it. Lastly, there are many good things about this plot and the back stories of the characters. Once the killer's identity is discovered, though, those clever, creative plot twists become very dull and in some cases non-existent. I love a good plot with lots of background knowledge, but even the satisfaction of knowing the killer gets anti-climactic if that knowledge risks the sabatoge of what has already been provided as good plot knowledge.
Wrap-up- This is a really good movie, until just about the end. It's so true that the finale can make or break the production, and it's still a good movie, but the inconsistencies and nose-dive of the plot leave it in just the average category. Check it out, though, if this type of movie is up your alley.
Pros- Well, let's not beat around the bush, the biggest positive note in this film is that Ashley Judd is kind of a ho'. I mean that with all due respect, but how many countless movies has she been in where she's been abused, battered, cheated on, or hurt- it's about time she becomes the queen of one night stands with strangers! This proves to be a troublesome hobby when all the men she has slept with start coming up dead. Whoops. As a cop with a deceased serial killer for a father, you can only guess who they're pointing the finger at. This is a good thriller because the plot moves along rather quickly, and while it's fun to guess who the next dead ex will be, it is tougher to guess who the one responsible is. Andy Garcia does a nice job as the calm, collected partner, while Samuel L. Jackson also does well in his supporting role. Again, let's not forget my love of themes when it comes to murder. I don't care how simplistic, it's always nice to have a themed motive in a murder flick- it provides a means on which to formulate guesses on who is responsible, and it adds a new depth to the plot. This time, it happens to be former lovers of Ashley Judd, which proves to be a very personal, and tough trend for her to discover.
Cons- Although Judd portrays an excellent inspector, she tends to also portray a fairly dim girlfriend. The men she's dated that get enough screen time to hear a story about them are both arrogant and aggressive. For someone who's supposed to have great character perception in her job, she sure doesn't have it on the dating field. She also lacks in the brains department when it comes time to settle in to bed every night, and her evening glass of wine causes her to drop to the floor and pass out. It's a new wine called Sauvignon Rohypnol, and it's a dry red. If it were me, I'd have joined AA, and quick. Not that she abuses alcohol in the movie, but if my wine did that to me I'd probably stop drinking it. Lastly, there are many good things about this plot and the back stories of the characters. Once the killer's identity is discovered, though, those clever, creative plot twists become very dull and in some cases non-existent. I love a good plot with lots of background knowledge, but even the satisfaction of knowing the killer gets anti-climactic if that knowledge risks the sabatoge of what has already been provided as good plot knowledge.
Wrap-up- This is a really good movie, until just about the end. It's so true that the finale can make or break the production, and it's still a good movie, but the inconsistencies and nose-dive of the plot leave it in just the average category. Check it out, though, if this type of movie is up your alley.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Film Filter: Off - The Lost Tribe
The Lost Tribe- So this is the first film on my review list that received the lowest rating. I'm very serious when I say that watching this film is probably the biggest waste of time you'll encounter. I honestly can't say that I know what possessed me to continue to watch it...I suppose in hopes that the ending would save it but, alas, that didn't happen.
Pros- Hmmm, this is where I need to get creative. Pro #1- the movie was only 1 hr 40 minutes long, and not a second longer. Pro #2- the leading actress was (kind of) hot. Pro #3...I got nothing.
Cons- So we've got the setup here for a perfect horror movie- four people on a pleasure cruise to a meeting that will garner them millions of dollars, but *gasp* something goes awry! Someone is floating in the ocean, so one of the male passengers saves him and they opt not to call the Coast Guard, as it will take too long and they've got better things to do with their time. So far, not an awful plot. This nut-job of a flotation device goes berserk and steers the ship into a rock and causes it to sink, while the passengers find their way to a nearby shore. We find out that there are creatures inhabiting this island which are the missing link between humans and the evolutionary theory. These creatures do not speak English, are very hairy, and like to eat people. Again, not too shabby thus far- but that's about as good as it gets, folks.
The next hour and a half includes all but one of the main characters dying, thus leaving one English speaking character left on film. Somehow, we find out that the creatures must have a Helen Keller-like handicap, for they honestly have a hard time hearing the final character as she traverses among them. Oh, and if she rubs grape ooze all over her body, she can't be seen by them. Genius! She finds her beloved boyfriend half dead in a cave (who, by the way, handed her a velvet box at the beginning of the movie and guess what was inside!? A key. What every girl has always wished for.) and cries a little bit, then strangles him. Cute. Oh yeah, somewhere in the midst of this riveting plot the Catholic church is involved (what did I tell you about creepy ministers and horror movies?).
So...let's pretend for a second that this movie didn't suck in every capacity and analyze the logic behind it. Humans evolved from apes to this thing and...it's still around? Last time I checked things that were evolved from went extinct, because they EVOLVED, but I'm willing to overlook that in order to inspect the other fine qualities of this film, so let's recap: we have no characters, no dialogue, no background story on why the Catholic church is torqued (we can assume it's the prospect of proof of the theory of evolution) even though it's the only interesting sub-plot, half a dozen partially eaten human bodies, a mysterious oozing mud coming from a grape plant that makes you invisible, and a marginally attractive blonde searching for the half-eaten love of her life that gave her a key to his apartment.
I can't find a way to wrap up this review, other than to urge you not to watch it, or at least find a way to turn it into a drinking game.
Pros- Hmmm, this is where I need to get creative. Pro #1- the movie was only 1 hr 40 minutes long, and not a second longer. Pro #2- the leading actress was (kind of) hot. Pro #3...I got nothing.
Cons- So we've got the setup here for a perfect horror movie- four people on a pleasure cruise to a meeting that will garner them millions of dollars, but *gasp* something goes awry! Someone is floating in the ocean, so one of the male passengers saves him and they opt not to call the Coast Guard, as it will take too long and they've got better things to do with their time. So far, not an awful plot. This nut-job of a flotation device goes berserk and steers the ship into a rock and causes it to sink, while the passengers find their way to a nearby shore. We find out that there are creatures inhabiting this island which are the missing link between humans and the evolutionary theory. These creatures do not speak English, are very hairy, and like to eat people. Again, not too shabby thus far- but that's about as good as it gets, folks.
The next hour and a half includes all but one of the main characters dying, thus leaving one English speaking character left on film. Somehow, we find out that the creatures must have a Helen Keller-like handicap, for they honestly have a hard time hearing the final character as she traverses among them. Oh, and if she rubs grape ooze all over her body, she can't be seen by them. Genius! She finds her beloved boyfriend half dead in a cave (who, by the way, handed her a velvet box at the beginning of the movie and guess what was inside!? A key. What every girl has always wished for.) and cries a little bit, then strangles him. Cute. Oh yeah, somewhere in the midst of this riveting plot the Catholic church is involved (what did I tell you about creepy ministers and horror movies?).
So...let's pretend for a second that this movie didn't suck in every capacity and analyze the logic behind it. Humans evolved from apes to this thing and...it's still around? Last time I checked things that were evolved from went extinct, because they EVOLVED, but I'm willing to overlook that in order to inspect the other fine qualities of this film, so let's recap: we have no characters, no dialogue, no background story on why the Catholic church is torqued (we can assume it's the prospect of proof of the theory of evolution) even though it's the only interesting sub-plot, half a dozen partially eaten human bodies, a mysterious oozing mud coming from a grape plant that makes you invisible, and a marginally attractive blonde searching for the half-eaten love of her life that gave her a key to his apartment.
I can't find a way to wrap up this review, other than to urge you not to watch it, or at least find a way to turn it into a drinking game.
Film Filter: Off - The Alphabet Killer
Film Filter: Off - The Alphabet Killer
This movie received a fairly low rating because of it's overall "ehh" quality. Anytime the movie started to get interesting or take a turn, it went "ehhh" again, and jumped right back into the realm of so-so. I guess we should start with the positives, as that proves to be a much shorter list.
Pros- Ever since Bring it On, I have kind of had a woman crush on Eliza Dushku. I'm hoping one day she can get married and rid herself of that weird last name, but everything else about her makes the sub-par last name tolerable. I thoroughly enjoyed seeing her star in a film where she was neither a sex kitten or the object of everyone's affection, although it seems odd since she is so hot. It almost made the movie comical in the fact that she gets dumped for being crazy and trying to kill herself because she is hallucinating. Come on, it's Eliza Dushku! The other thing I enjoyed about this film is the strategy of the murderer having a killing theme (the alphabet). It makes the movie above par when the killer has some sort of intellectual reasoning for doing what they are doing. Also, can we give the city of Rochester a standing ovation for making it into a movie? Sure, it was about a serial killer rampant in the quaint suburbs, but it's still publicity- yay for the 585! Lastly, some bonus points are awarded for being "based on true events". I know some people take this statement with a grain of salt, but some of it had to have happened, or they wouldn't have made the claim. Props for turning reality (no matter how far a stretch they take) into a cinematic adventure.
Cons- Where to begin? Part of the problem with this film is the dreary cinematography. It seems like every scene is black, grey or some combination of those with another morbidly drab color. This diminished my liking of the use of Rochester, because using a setting in your story is only as good as the way you use it. They managed to make Rochester and all of its suburbs look like the dirty bathroom of a crack-whore. Not good. Plus, there's some sentimental value in the fact that I student taught in Webster, and the movie in no way did the town justice. Webster is comparable to a mini-utopia, and they made it look like poo-poo. I know, I know- you're going to tell me that scary movies are supposed to look dark. Well let me ask you what's scarier: a serial killer roaming a dark alley in the streets of a bad neighborhood, or a serial killer roaming the family owned shops on the corner of a safe, crime free neighborhood? I guess everyone has their preference, but it's different watching a director portray a remote place that exists that you've been to, and doing so inaccurately. Bonus points deducted.
The other pro I had that needs to also be revoked is the use of the killer's theme. As you traipse through the story with Megan, you find out that the killer's alphabet theme was pretty much all a coincidence. They followed through with it after they realized, "Oh. That murder was significant because the girl's first and last name begin with the letter 'C'. And I dumped her body in a town that begins with the letter 'C'." This entire series of murders is brought to you by the letter 'C'. It's like a whacked serial killer episode of Sesame Street, but not planned nearly as well. Megan is also crazy, as I mentioned, and hallucinates- seeing the ghosts of the murdered victims. The ghosts apparently "help" her figure out who their killer is by (drum roll)...standing there and looking creepy. They do nothing to help. If you're going to show ghosts of dead girls, make it either creepy and haunting, or pathetic and helpful. Don't make them creepy and useless. That's just...well, useless.
Lastly, the Alphabet Killer does not kill in alphabetical order. Lame-o.
This movie received a fairly low rating because of it's overall "ehh" quality. Anytime the movie started to get interesting or take a turn, it went "ehhh" again, and jumped right back into the realm of so-so. I guess we should start with the positives, as that proves to be a much shorter list.
Pros- Ever since Bring it On, I have kind of had a woman crush on Eliza Dushku. I'm hoping one day she can get married and rid herself of that weird last name, but everything else about her makes the sub-par last name tolerable. I thoroughly enjoyed seeing her star in a film where she was neither a sex kitten or the object of everyone's affection, although it seems odd since she is so hot. It almost made the movie comical in the fact that she gets dumped for being crazy and trying to kill herself because she is hallucinating. Come on, it's Eliza Dushku! The other thing I enjoyed about this film is the strategy of the murderer having a killing theme (the alphabet). It makes the movie above par when the killer has some sort of intellectual reasoning for doing what they are doing. Also, can we give the city of Rochester a standing ovation for making it into a movie? Sure, it was about a serial killer rampant in the quaint suburbs, but it's still publicity- yay for the 585! Lastly, some bonus points are awarded for being "based on true events". I know some people take this statement with a grain of salt, but some of it had to have happened, or they wouldn't have made the claim. Props for turning reality (no matter how far a stretch they take) into a cinematic adventure.
Cons- Where to begin? Part of the problem with this film is the dreary cinematography. It seems like every scene is black, grey or some combination of those with another morbidly drab color. This diminished my liking of the use of Rochester, because using a setting in your story is only as good as the way you use it. They managed to make Rochester and all of its suburbs look like the dirty bathroom of a crack-whore. Not good. Plus, there's some sentimental value in the fact that I student taught in Webster, and the movie in no way did the town justice. Webster is comparable to a mini-utopia, and they made it look like poo-poo. I know, I know- you're going to tell me that scary movies are supposed to look dark. Well let me ask you what's scarier: a serial killer roaming a dark alley in the streets of a bad neighborhood, or a serial killer roaming the family owned shops on the corner of a safe, crime free neighborhood? I guess everyone has their preference, but it's different watching a director portray a remote place that exists that you've been to, and doing so inaccurately. Bonus points deducted.
The other pro I had that needs to also be revoked is the use of the killer's theme. As you traipse through the story with Megan, you find out that the killer's alphabet theme was pretty much all a coincidence. They followed through with it after they realized, "Oh. That murder was significant because the girl's first and last name begin with the letter 'C'. And I dumped her body in a town that begins with the letter 'C'." This entire series of murders is brought to you by the letter 'C'. It's like a whacked serial killer episode of Sesame Street, but not planned nearly as well. Megan is also crazy, as I mentioned, and hallucinates- seeing the ghosts of the murdered victims. The ghosts apparently "help" her figure out who their killer is by (drum roll)...standing there and looking creepy. They do nothing to help. If you're going to show ghosts of dead girls, make it either creepy and haunting, or pathetic and helpful. Don't make them creepy and useless. That's just...well, useless.
Lastly, the Alphabet Killer does not kill in alphabetical order. Lame-o.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Film Filter: Off - Insidious
Film Filter: Off Insidious-
This film received a high rating from me for many reasons, number one being its creativity. It takes many common themes found in stereotypical horror films and takes a new direction with them. This movie is also enhanced by the fact that it has been dramatically unadvertised and has a fairly B/C list cast. Even the description of the movie leaves much to be desired plot-wise, so your only option of getting more information is to go see it.
Pros- I found the camera use to have a positive effect on the film as there were many opportunities, shot-wise, for a scary pop-up moment. The director does not choose to take this opportunity all of the time, so it leaves the moments where it does happen to be more meaningful. The images in this movie tend to be extremely creepy and haunting, but they are also at times predictable (which was great for me, because then I knew when to turn away). I also liked that not all of the details of Dalton's condition were divulged too quickly. There was no dramatic irony of the audience knowing more than the characters, so it felt like we could become more involved in the story. They also added a few nice twists toward the ending involving Dalton's father, which I saw coming in some ways, but because of the director's insight to not over-inform the audience too soon, I was forced to wait until nearly the end to learn the key details that allowed me to understand what those twists were. It was a very smartly played out film.
Cons- Some of the things that caused this movie to slip from the star rating are its odd choice of make-up for the souls that wander in the Further; it looked a little like they had collectively decided to raid Cher's make-up case. It definitely enhanced the creepiness in ways, but also detracted from it when I realized they were ALL made up like that. I also enjoyed what my imagination conjured up after seeing only the demon's silhouette, so I was a little disappointed when they showed all of his features, which didn't match up with my expectations. Just showing the face could have worked, but showing the whole demon made him less scary, in my opinion. Sometimes less is more! I'd have to say the big reason for points being docked was some disjuncture in the plot. There was a bit of background information that was hinted at about why the family had to move, but never brought up again. There were also some moments that left the audience wondering why the story took a certain direction or mood briefly, that didn't quite make sense right away (the little leprechaun-type guy dancing, the "Tiptoe through the Tulips" song that was referenced twice). Although they eventually got resolved, it was left unattended for long enough to distract me.
Wrap up- Overall, a VERY good horror movie. It's definitely the first one in a long time where I straight up screamed aloud in the theater (along with others, so I'm not a total loser). It is unique, and succeeds in all the ways a good scary movie should.
This film received a high rating from me for many reasons, number one being its creativity. It takes many common themes found in stereotypical horror films and takes a new direction with them. This movie is also enhanced by the fact that it has been dramatically unadvertised and has a fairly B/C list cast. Even the description of the movie leaves much to be desired plot-wise, so your only option of getting more information is to go see it.
Pros- I found the camera use to have a positive effect on the film as there were many opportunities, shot-wise, for a scary pop-up moment. The director does not choose to take this opportunity all of the time, so it leaves the moments where it does happen to be more meaningful. The images in this movie tend to be extremely creepy and haunting, but they are also at times predictable (which was great for me, because then I knew when to turn away). I also liked that not all of the details of Dalton's condition were divulged too quickly. There was no dramatic irony of the audience knowing more than the characters, so it felt like we could become more involved in the story. They also added a few nice twists toward the ending involving Dalton's father, which I saw coming in some ways, but because of the director's insight to not over-inform the audience too soon, I was forced to wait until nearly the end to learn the key details that allowed me to understand what those twists were. It was a very smartly played out film.
Cons- Some of the things that caused this movie to slip from the star rating are its odd choice of make-up for the souls that wander in the Further; it looked a little like they had collectively decided to raid Cher's make-up case. It definitely enhanced the creepiness in ways, but also detracted from it when I realized they were ALL made up like that. I also enjoyed what my imagination conjured up after seeing only the demon's silhouette, so I was a little disappointed when they showed all of his features, which didn't match up with my expectations. Just showing the face could have worked, but showing the whole demon made him less scary, in my opinion. Sometimes less is more! I'd have to say the big reason for points being docked was some disjuncture in the plot. There was a bit of background information that was hinted at about why the family had to move, but never brought up again. There were also some moments that left the audience wondering why the story took a certain direction or mood briefly, that didn't quite make sense right away (the little leprechaun-type guy dancing, the "Tiptoe through the Tulips" song that was referenced twice). Although they eventually got resolved, it was left unattended for long enough to distract me.
Wrap up- Overall, a VERY good horror movie. It's definitely the first one in a long time where I straight up screamed aloud in the theater (along with others, so I'm not a total loser). It is unique, and succeeds in all the ways a good scary movie should.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)