Film Filter: Off- I had seen parts of this movie a long time ago and remember it being the first film in which I had seen Robert Downey Jr. I saw it on Netflix and thought it might be nice to have a refresher on it.
Pros: One of the things that I found very interesting with this film was the cinematography. There were many scenes that took place in a dream-like state in an orchard, and they did an excellent job of making the scenery have an eerie feel to it, but also a sense of wonderment and mystery.
This movie also has a lot of symbolic color to it, using red quite frequently. They even go as far as to name the character in peril "Ruby". Add that to the red hair of the antagonist, the red dress seen in the dreams, and the constant references to orchards and apples and you have an abundance of the rosy hue. I'm not sure what the direct relationship with red is in films with symbolism, other than the obvious representation of blood. There have been many films that have had this common theme, and not just gory ones. It could possibly represent control, as red is a majestic color and is also seen as a power color.
As I mentioned, this is the first film I had seen Robert Downey Jr. in (minus Weird Science...but who counts that one in his repertoire?) and I have to say I didn't have a great first impression. Not because of his acting ability, but because he creeped the hell out of me in this role. He plays a very mentally unstable adult who was clearly mistreated to a foul degree as a child. He seems to have issues identifying with his sexuality as a young boy, but seems to be pretty clever when it comes to escaping from and covering up his deviant activities. Overall, having now been able to compare his roles in various films from his career to this one, I have a much greater appreciation for him as an actor. I think the true testament of a good actor comes when/if they have to play a crazy person. To do the job justice takes an extreme amount of dedication and patience, but the outcome usually justifies the means, a la Heath Ledger.
Cons: Annette Bening? Yikes. There were about four times that I thought she did a good job in this film and that's saying something, as she was just about in every shot. I can't really put my finger on what was irksome about her performance, other than she seemed really inconsistent and illogical. You might be saying, "Well, she was crazy..." but that's the thing- she WASN'T! It was hard for me to take her seriously, even though I knew the whole time that she was sane.
The other incredibly frustrating part of this film comes on the behalf of the stupid-ass psychiatrist who was responsible for Annette Bening's well being. Maybe I'm just privileged from my experience with B.D. Wong as the Law & Order SVU psychiatrist, but there comes a point where you have to put the "my patient is a nut job" aside and actually look for validation in their story...especially if they have had not past of mental illness. The fact that she was spouting off information about the killer and predicting her own husband's death seemed to not matter to the psychiatrist, and it wasn't until a few days later that any of her story was looked into. Someone should revoke his license.
And lastly and MOST frustrating(...ly?) was the unexplained connection between Claire Cooper's (Bening) brain and Vivian Thompson's (Downey). Anyone? Nothing. There was one shot where it almost alluded the link to the fact that she wrote children's stories, but nothing more was brought up on it. I'm all for supernatural connections between murderers and victims, but please have it be rational.
Wrap up- This movie is a tough one to peg. What it lacks in characterization and explanation, it almost makes up for with creativity and cinematography. Almost. I wouldn't really recommend this to anyone mainly because it lacks focus.
Monday, December 31, 2012
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Film Filter: Off - Slither
Film Filter: Off- This movie had popped up on my Netflix suggested list several times, and I had disregarded it until the other day. After looking at the cast, I'm surprised I didn't select it to view sooner.
Pros- As I just mentioned, there were more than a few members of the cast that were actually pretty well known. As you know from several of my reviews, I really like Nathan Fillion, and he certainly did not disappoint in this film. In all of the movies I've seen him in, he has definitely portrayed a very different type of character, but has done them all justice. Elizabeth Banks was also a pleasant surprise to the cast, along with Michael Rooker (Merle in The Walking Dead).
One of the things I liked the most about this movie was the comedic interruptions, which allowed the movie to feel more realistic. They weren't even blatant comedic attempts, but the dialogue felt so realistic and sort of pessimistic, which allowed for the subtlety of the humor to be expressed.
Although this is more or less a zombie movie, it doesn't really go about the cliche zombie movie recipe, which is nice and refreshing. It adds a lot of new elements, and ties them all together in a nice, neat package which allows the audience to enjoy the movie without any stereotypes or distractions.
I will say it was pretty brilliant to have one of the girls get a worm stuck part way down her throat, but was then able to pull it out. It gave her an inside look at what the alien's existence has been, and as soon as she frees herself from its grasp she now knows enough to be helpful to the rest of the survivors.
Lastly **SPOILER ALERT** it's assumed that as soon as the host alien is killed, the town and its infected people will resume normalcy. Wrong. All the infected people die, which I like. Not saying I like death or anything like that, but it's unrealistic to become possessed by an alien worm, have it live inside your brain, and then just survive when its host dies. I mean, it's in your brain.
Cons- One of the things I disliked about the movie was the ludicrous amount of slithery, disgusting worms and how inconsistently they attack. They seem to sense human flesh, since they gravitate toward it constantly throughout the film, yet when there are hundreds of worms that explode from a body, and only 10 or so humans in the room, there are like 5 or 6 humans that don't get attacked. The odds don't seem right to me on that one.
Also, when the host alien sticks his pointy umbilical cords into you, he sucks you dry and inserts the worm disease instead. We don't find out, though, until the end of the movie that you must have both pointy extensions inside of you to get infected. It's just another circumstance of making something happen, and then validating it later with a statement like, "Oh by the way, that is supposed to happen."
Wrap up- This was one of those movies that definitely had me pleasantly surprised. I laughed a lot more than I was frightened, but overall it was one of the better movies I've seen in a while, considering I prejudiced it with some pretty low expectations.
Pros- As I just mentioned, there were more than a few members of the cast that were actually pretty well known. As you know from several of my reviews, I really like Nathan Fillion, and he certainly did not disappoint in this film. In all of the movies I've seen him in, he has definitely portrayed a very different type of character, but has done them all justice. Elizabeth Banks was also a pleasant surprise to the cast, along with Michael Rooker (Merle in The Walking Dead).
One of the things I liked the most about this movie was the comedic interruptions, which allowed the movie to feel more realistic. They weren't even blatant comedic attempts, but the dialogue felt so realistic and sort of pessimistic, which allowed for the subtlety of the humor to be expressed.
Although this is more or less a zombie movie, it doesn't really go about the cliche zombie movie recipe, which is nice and refreshing. It adds a lot of new elements, and ties them all together in a nice, neat package which allows the audience to enjoy the movie without any stereotypes or distractions.
I will say it was pretty brilliant to have one of the girls get a worm stuck part way down her throat, but was then able to pull it out. It gave her an inside look at what the alien's existence has been, and as soon as she frees herself from its grasp she now knows enough to be helpful to the rest of the survivors.
Lastly **SPOILER ALERT** it's assumed that as soon as the host alien is killed, the town and its infected people will resume normalcy. Wrong. All the infected people die, which I like. Not saying I like death or anything like that, but it's unrealistic to become possessed by an alien worm, have it live inside your brain, and then just survive when its host dies. I mean, it's in your brain.
Cons- One of the things I disliked about the movie was the ludicrous amount of slithery, disgusting worms and how inconsistently they attack. They seem to sense human flesh, since they gravitate toward it constantly throughout the film, yet when there are hundreds of worms that explode from a body, and only 10 or so humans in the room, there are like 5 or 6 humans that don't get attacked. The odds don't seem right to me on that one.
Also, when the host alien sticks his pointy umbilical cords into you, he sucks you dry and inserts the worm disease instead. We don't find out, though, until the end of the movie that you must have both pointy extensions inside of you to get infected. It's just another circumstance of making something happen, and then validating it later with a statement like, "Oh by the way, that is supposed to happen."
Wrap up- This was one of those movies that definitely had me pleasantly surprised. I laughed a lot more than I was frightened, but overall it was one of the better movies I've seen in a while, considering I prejudiced it with some pretty low expectations.
Film Filter: Off - Identity
Film Filter: Off- One of the first things I look at when choosing a horror movie is the cast. Seeing as this one had a pretty well known group of actors, I figured I would give it a go.
Pros- I really like John Cusack, and despite his tendency to always play the same type of role, I always enjoy seeing him on screen. In addition to his performance, I think most of the cast held their own and portrayed their characters well.
I would definitely have to say that the premise for the story was pretty unique as well. Despite the fact that human psyche films are popular, this one definitely took a different look at it. It also did an excellent job of making one world out of something that was actually two. Eventually it became clear that there were separate stories, but the two fit very nicely together until that time.
The ending does a nice job of tying up some loose ends while also throwing in a bit of a twist. It was one that I sort of saw coming, but dismissed right after I thought about it. I think it's one that would be a surprise for most, as it's really not all that predictable.
Cons- One of the things that I thought was pretty irritating was Amanda Peet's character and her inability to follow simple directions. I get that she's an independent woman who doesn't like to take orders, but when people are dying and a former police officer is telling you what to do to make the situation better or calmer, you should probably heed him.
Another thing that I found a little jarring about the film, was the moment the viewer realized that there were indeed two stories going on at one time. It took me a while to figure out what was happening and who belonged where, and then it upset me that some of the characters I had grown to like ended up not being real. I suppose the film was supposed to force you to take a minute to figure it out, but there was a definite WTF moment for me mid-way through the film.
Wrap-up- This film isn't bad, if your looking for a psychological drama with limited scary moments.
Pros- I really like John Cusack, and despite his tendency to always play the same type of role, I always enjoy seeing him on screen. In addition to his performance, I think most of the cast held their own and portrayed their characters well.
I would definitely have to say that the premise for the story was pretty unique as well. Despite the fact that human psyche films are popular, this one definitely took a different look at it. It also did an excellent job of making one world out of something that was actually two. Eventually it became clear that there were separate stories, but the two fit very nicely together until that time.
The ending does a nice job of tying up some loose ends while also throwing in a bit of a twist. It was one that I sort of saw coming, but dismissed right after I thought about it. I think it's one that would be a surprise for most, as it's really not all that predictable.
Cons- One of the things that I thought was pretty irritating was Amanda Peet's character and her inability to follow simple directions. I get that she's an independent woman who doesn't like to take orders, but when people are dying and a former police officer is telling you what to do to make the situation better or calmer, you should probably heed him.
Another thing that I found a little jarring about the film, was the moment the viewer realized that there were indeed two stories going on at one time. It took me a while to figure out what was happening and who belonged where, and then it upset me that some of the characters I had grown to like ended up not being real. I suppose the film was supposed to force you to take a minute to figure it out, but there was a definite WTF moment for me mid-way through the film.
Wrap-up- This film isn't bad, if your looking for a psychological drama with limited scary moments.
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Film Filter: Off - Don't be Afraid of the Dark
Film Filter: Off- I had intended on watching this film some time ago, but never really got around to it. When I saw that it was on Netflix, I jumped at the opportunity, because I like a lot of Guillermo del Toro's films.
Pros- I won't say that the entire cast was well selected, but many of them were. I especially like Katie Holmes in the maternal type of role, because I feel like it fit her personality pretty well. Guy Pearce was ok as the dad, but I definitely wasn't in love with his character or the way he played it, and I really wasn't fond of how the little girl was cast, but we'll get to that later. Also, many of the minor characters were cast very well and played into the realism of the film.
Possibly what del Toro does best is use his imagination to create a world much more magical than reality, with fascinating creatures that are interesting to watch develop on screen. This film is no exception, as he makes his little antagonists unique and realistic. In this particular film, it seems that he leaned toward quantity more than quality, but that is understandable when you see how many of them there are. That's certainly not meant to be a slam, but you often see a little more detail and ingenuity with his creatures, and these ones are more lackluster.
I had a love/hate relationship with the ending. I think it provided a necessary aspect of the film that was begged to occur throughout the film, but I was also torn personally because of who it happened to. I didn't quite understand the last statement made, but perhaps I missed something and it made perfect sense.
Cons- My first beef with this movie is that, even from the previews, you assume that Katie Holmes is the young girl's mother. Why? Because she looks just freaking like her. It's pretty annoying to endure the entire film knowing that she is not the biological mother, but being frustrated because she looks more like her than she does her father. Grrr! Poor casting decision. I also wasn't fond of the way the character was portrayed, which has more to do with the directors that characterized her than the young girl herself. She's sad, lonely, and feels like nobody loves her, so immediately we are meant to pity her. So, she wishes to befriend unknown creatures hiding in the furnace of a locked basement in an old, creepy home? That seems a little irrational. Maybe befriend your father's girlfriend instead, as she is eager to get to know you and clearly cares about you...but nah, hungry mythical creatures seems like a better bet.
In terms of del Toro's magical world being created, I felt it gave a little bit of a schizophrenic vibe. The house was lovely, and the mystical garden in the back with the beautiful ponds felt like that's where the movie should have taken place. Instead, as the creatures are antagonists, the movie takes place mostly in a dark, dingy basement. It was interesting, and a little visually confusing, to have the mythical creatures and the mythical garden not be intertwined.
One of my biggest cons, in any film, is the lack of common sense. Anyone who has suffered through the Gingerdead Man will understand my complaint with small, evil beings less than a foot in height. Seriously? They're going to get the better of you? How about a flame thrower? Or, if you know their weakness is bright light, how about you sleep with all the lights on, instead of a flimsy night light prone to breaking. Or when they attack you in your bathroom, instead of looking for the door, maybe look for the light switch? There were so many frustrating, easily fixed circumstances that I lost track.
Lastly, the ending was a little confusing. In the past, when the evil faeries had taken someone down their sewer 'o death, that person was dead. Duh. It was a pretty long fall, and I don't think that anyone could survive it. **SPOILER ALERT** When Katie Holmes' character, Kim, gets dragged down, you hear her voice at the end all creepy-like saying "Don't worry, she'll be back..." Ummm, anyone care to explain to me what happened? Did she turn into one of them? Even if she was alive, she sacrificed herself to save the little girl, so why is she now evil? I don't get it!
Wrap up- I wouldn't recommend this movie, unless you are very interested in seeing what the creatures look like. The plot is unique, but the little nuances that don't make sense trump whatever good is left in the movie.
Pros- I won't say that the entire cast was well selected, but many of them were. I especially like Katie Holmes in the maternal type of role, because I feel like it fit her personality pretty well. Guy Pearce was ok as the dad, but I definitely wasn't in love with his character or the way he played it, and I really wasn't fond of how the little girl was cast, but we'll get to that later. Also, many of the minor characters were cast very well and played into the realism of the film.
Possibly what del Toro does best is use his imagination to create a world much more magical than reality, with fascinating creatures that are interesting to watch develop on screen. This film is no exception, as he makes his little antagonists unique and realistic. In this particular film, it seems that he leaned toward quantity more than quality, but that is understandable when you see how many of them there are. That's certainly not meant to be a slam, but you often see a little more detail and ingenuity with his creatures, and these ones are more lackluster.
I had a love/hate relationship with the ending. I think it provided a necessary aspect of the film that was begged to occur throughout the film, but I was also torn personally because of who it happened to. I didn't quite understand the last statement made, but perhaps I missed something and it made perfect sense.
Cons- My first beef with this movie is that, even from the previews, you assume that Katie Holmes is the young girl's mother. Why? Because she looks just freaking like her. It's pretty annoying to endure the entire film knowing that she is not the biological mother, but being frustrated because she looks more like her than she does her father. Grrr! Poor casting decision. I also wasn't fond of the way the character was portrayed, which has more to do with the directors that characterized her than the young girl herself. She's sad, lonely, and feels like nobody loves her, so immediately we are meant to pity her. So, she wishes to befriend unknown creatures hiding in the furnace of a locked basement in an old, creepy home? That seems a little irrational. Maybe befriend your father's girlfriend instead, as she is eager to get to know you and clearly cares about you...but nah, hungry mythical creatures seems like a better bet.
In terms of del Toro's magical world being created, I felt it gave a little bit of a schizophrenic vibe. The house was lovely, and the mystical garden in the back with the beautiful ponds felt like that's where the movie should have taken place. Instead, as the creatures are antagonists, the movie takes place mostly in a dark, dingy basement. It was interesting, and a little visually confusing, to have the mythical creatures and the mythical garden not be intertwined.
One of my biggest cons, in any film, is the lack of common sense. Anyone who has suffered through the Gingerdead Man will understand my complaint with small, evil beings less than a foot in height. Seriously? They're going to get the better of you? How about a flame thrower? Or, if you know their weakness is bright light, how about you sleep with all the lights on, instead of a flimsy night light prone to breaking. Or when they attack you in your bathroom, instead of looking for the door, maybe look for the light switch? There were so many frustrating, easily fixed circumstances that I lost track.
Lastly, the ending was a little confusing. In the past, when the evil faeries had taken someone down their sewer 'o death, that person was dead. Duh. It was a pretty long fall, and I don't think that anyone could survive it. **SPOILER ALERT** When Katie Holmes' character, Kim, gets dragged down, you hear her voice at the end all creepy-like saying "Don't worry, she'll be back..." Ummm, anyone care to explain to me what happened? Did she turn into one of them? Even if she was alive, she sacrificed herself to save the little girl, so why is she now evil? I don't get it!
Wrap up- I wouldn't recommend this movie, unless you are very interested in seeing what the creatures look like. The plot is unique, but the little nuances that don't make sense trump whatever good is left in the movie.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Film Filter: Off - Paranormal Activity 2
Film Filter: Off- Since the fourth one just recently made its debut in theaters, I figured it was about time for me to succumb to the pressure and try watching the series.
Pros- One of the things that is up and coming in the horror biz is the use of music, or sometimes lack thereof. As a found footage genre film, it's pretty clear that this one doesn't utilize music. This oftentimes becomes a pro, as music is usually one of two things in horror movies: foreshadowing something about to happen, or false foreshadowing an event only to result in silence...and THEN the event becomes more effective in the silence. Having no music whatsoever allows the scary moments in the film to be taken as they would naturally happen, as opposed to pumping up a moment with good sound or music.
Not unlike the pros I noted with the original film is the ability to scaffold the intensity and the scary moments within the film. I will say I was a little disappointed with what the moments were, and I didn't find this movie to be all that different from the first one, but they (sort of) utilized a good technique that was exhibited in the original.
This sequel to the original is actually pretty well known to be a prequel. What you don't realize until the end, however, is that it covers both the events before the first movie, and the ones immediately following it as well. As someone who doesn't enjoy loose ends in movies, I found this to be pretty gratifying.
Cons- As I stated above, this movie is really not any different from the original. It layers the events of the haunting in the same way, it even is the same family and demon responsible for the haunting. The only difference is that it adds information that we did not have about the events of Katie and Micah prior to their encounters, and right after as well. While I did say that was gratifying, it was also about 10 minutes of information that could have easily been added to the first one. To include a movie that is almost a carbon copy of an original just to add a parallel perspective of events and 10 minutes worth of new information seems a bit wasteful to me.
Wrap up- This movie wasn't bad, if you look at it on its own, but in conjunction with the original it pretty much felt like a waste of time. I'm assuming that's why the third movie starts to focus on the family at a much older time period. God forbid they tried to use the same one again, as they seem to be running out of ideas...maybe they should make a movie from the dog's perspective.
Pros- One of the things that is up and coming in the horror biz is the use of music, or sometimes lack thereof. As a found footage genre film, it's pretty clear that this one doesn't utilize music. This oftentimes becomes a pro, as music is usually one of two things in horror movies: foreshadowing something about to happen, or false foreshadowing an event only to result in silence...and THEN the event becomes more effective in the silence. Having no music whatsoever allows the scary moments in the film to be taken as they would naturally happen, as opposed to pumping up a moment with good sound or music.
Not unlike the pros I noted with the original film is the ability to scaffold the intensity and the scary moments within the film. I will say I was a little disappointed with what the moments were, and I didn't find this movie to be all that different from the first one, but they (sort of) utilized a good technique that was exhibited in the original.
This sequel to the original is actually pretty well known to be a prequel. What you don't realize until the end, however, is that it covers both the events before the first movie, and the ones immediately following it as well. As someone who doesn't enjoy loose ends in movies, I found this to be pretty gratifying.
Cons- As I stated above, this movie is really not any different from the original. It layers the events of the haunting in the same way, it even is the same family and demon responsible for the haunting. The only difference is that it adds information that we did not have about the events of Katie and Micah prior to their encounters, and right after as well. While I did say that was gratifying, it was also about 10 minutes of information that could have easily been added to the first one. To include a movie that is almost a carbon copy of an original just to add a parallel perspective of events and 10 minutes worth of new information seems a bit wasteful to me.
Wrap up- This movie wasn't bad, if you look at it on its own, but in conjunction with the original it pretty much felt like a waste of time. I'm assuming that's why the third movie starts to focus on the family at a much older time period. God forbid they tried to use the same one again, as they seem to be running out of ideas...maybe they should make a movie from the dog's perspective.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Film Filter: Off - Sinister
Film Filter: Off- I vividly remember seeing
this movie trailer as an advertisement on a youtube video I was watching, and I
was instantly interested. Above
and beyond the fact that it was made by the same people who brought you
Insidious and Paranormal Activity, the story seemed interesting and I am always
a sucker for the supernatural.
Pros- The
acting definitely helped this movie feel pretty realistic. Ethan Hawke hasn’t been in much
recently that I can recall, but I feel like he did a commendable job in this
film. The effectiveness came from
a mix from his character alone, and almost more importantly, the way the locals
treated him and the interactions between him and his family. They helped characterize his role
sometimes even more so than he did.
There were many moments in the characters where they had a conflicting
persona than they had originally started with, and I think that most of them
played both sides of their characters well.
Despite the fact that this movie and Insidious have pretty
much the same type of story line, I actually found myself enjoying this one
more. Some of the differences that
made this one stand out in my mind were the scaffolding of the antagonist’s
face. Although Insidious did the
same thing, I found that Sinister didn’t overdo it with special effects like
Insidious did. This film also did
a better job of creating something that felt a tad more realistic. While both focused on paranormal entities
that we can choose to believe or not, it became a little too incredulous in
Insidious when he went into the “other realm” and I sort of checked out after
that. This one, while still
remaining a fantasy at times, felt more believable for a longer period of time.
One of the things that this movie did very well, which in my
opinion is an important staple of a good horror movie, is the scare
factor. Sure, some of the scares
were cheap shots, and almost ALL of them were predictable but it didn’t change
the fact that pretty much all of them were effective. Going hand in hand with the scare factor in this movie was
the use of music/sounds in the film.
A lot of times something that may not have been visually frightening
became so with the proper use of music and sound occurring in the background. This was pretty much the root of why
predictable moments became effectively scary, despite the fact that most of the
audience saw them coming.
Cons-
Overall, I didn’t have many qualms with this film, other than the
run-of-the-mill persnickety comments. I found it slightly annoying that Ethan Hawke’s character ignored
phone calls from the deputy, especially given the circumstances of their
situation.
It was also frustrating that the demon spirit was
intangible, but able to move things.
I mean, maybe he was tangible but it seems that, since he was a demon
that was killing people by using children, he needed them in order to carry out
tangible tasks. Otherwise,
wouldn’t he just do it himself?
On a side note, I (selfishly) would have liked a little bit
more information on the Pagan Deity Maghoul, Bagool…whatever his name was. I tried looking him up online, but he’s
pretty elusive. Must be he’s never
heard of Facebook.
Wrap up- This is an excellent movie choice if you are
looking for the following: good scares, interesting story line, good character
interactions.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Film Filter: Off- The Thing
Film Filter: Off- I had seen the original film, and I didn't realize that this one isn't actually a re-make; it's a prequel. I love it when movies take the higher road and seek to enhance the story instead of re-doing it, as the original plot and movie weren't that flawed to begin with.
Pros- One of the things this movie had going for it was the story line. I know that the group that created this film can't be held responsible for that, but it really is an idiot proof plot and I would have been shocked/mortified if this film weren't successful. What most scary movies attempt to create is a scenario in which some critical piece of information is not revealed. What this movie does to that concept (and enhances) is embraces it without even trying, as the nature of the human-imitating alien is that its identity cannot be determined. Since the alien can also still function in pieces, it furthers the concept of the unknown, since now many people can be infected without the majority of the researchers knowing. It really is a captivating concept and works very well.
As most re-makes/prequels/sequels intend, the special effects and makeup in this movie are much more interesting and prevalent than in the original. Usually, overly grotesque scenarios and unnecessary gore are unappealing to me, but since the documentation of this movie is of an unknown specie, it is almost appropriate to take the transformation process to the extreme. We're not dealing with humans or familiar animals, so why not go to the max?
Because this movie is centered around scientists and researchers, it makes sense that- since they were going to study the specie anyway- they would be spending a fair amount of time trying to figure out how to separate humans from the alien human imitators. For a moment the movie tried to go in the same direction as the original, so that was a little irritating, until that method failed and they were forced to go in a new direction. I thought that this was a fresh twist, and was used very well throughout the movie.
By far my most favorite part of this film is the throwback moment they had, regarding the original. I won't spill the beans, but anyone who has seen the one from the 80's will know what I'm talking about. The only reason the original movie could happen was because of this scenario, and I'm glad they included it.
Cons- I really don't have much here, other than I wasn't terribly fond of the ending scenes involving the spaceship. If it had crashed and been down in a chunk of ice for centuries...why did it look to be in mint condition? Also, were there no other aliens to be found on that huge ship? It seemed to be just one that split into several pieces. Other than that...and the obvious solution of, "Hey, if we don't EVER split up, then we'll know if someone gets abducted or not" this movie didn't have many cons.
Wrap up- Definitely see this movie. If you haven't seen the original, I would watch it as well, but I'm not sure which order would be best fitting.
Pros- One of the things this movie had going for it was the story line. I know that the group that created this film can't be held responsible for that, but it really is an idiot proof plot and I would have been shocked/mortified if this film weren't successful. What most scary movies attempt to create is a scenario in which some critical piece of information is not revealed. What this movie does to that concept (and enhances) is embraces it without even trying, as the nature of the human-imitating alien is that its identity cannot be determined. Since the alien can also still function in pieces, it furthers the concept of the unknown, since now many people can be infected without the majority of the researchers knowing. It really is a captivating concept and works very well.
As most re-makes/prequels/sequels intend, the special effects and makeup in this movie are much more interesting and prevalent than in the original. Usually, overly grotesque scenarios and unnecessary gore are unappealing to me, but since the documentation of this movie is of an unknown specie, it is almost appropriate to take the transformation process to the extreme. We're not dealing with humans or familiar animals, so why not go to the max?
Because this movie is centered around scientists and researchers, it makes sense that- since they were going to study the specie anyway- they would be spending a fair amount of time trying to figure out how to separate humans from the alien human imitators. For a moment the movie tried to go in the same direction as the original, so that was a little irritating, until that method failed and they were forced to go in a new direction. I thought that this was a fresh twist, and was used very well throughout the movie.
By far my most favorite part of this film is the throwback moment they had, regarding the original. I won't spill the beans, but anyone who has seen the one from the 80's will know what I'm talking about. The only reason the original movie could happen was because of this scenario, and I'm glad they included it.
Cons- I really don't have much here, other than I wasn't terribly fond of the ending scenes involving the spaceship. If it had crashed and been down in a chunk of ice for centuries...why did it look to be in mint condition? Also, were there no other aliens to be found on that huge ship? It seemed to be just one that split into several pieces. Other than that...and the obvious solution of, "Hey, if we don't EVER split up, then we'll know if someone gets abducted or not" this movie didn't have many cons.
Wrap up- Definitely see this movie. If you haven't seen the original, I would watch it as well, but I'm not sure which order would be best fitting.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Film Filter: Off - Session 9
Film Filter: Off- While perusing Netflix, my friend and I had it narrowed down to three scary movies, and this one looked the most promising. Better luck next time, I guess.
Pros- As I rack my brain trying to come up with a pro for this film, I find myself coming up horribly short. It's a stretch, but one pro was that I was able to watch it from beginning to end. The only reason for that being that I was waiting for something that was never actually bound to happen...a climax or resolution that made sense.
Another pro of this movie was the fact that the CSI Miami star was featured in this film. I bet this is what they saw to make their casting decision for the show, which would also explain why everyone finds David Caruso's character so...interesting. Was his acting good? No, not really. But he was fun to watch mainly because it validates that we aren't being unfairly critical of his cheese-ball-licious performances on his TV melodrama.
Cons- I'm going to try to make this as short and painless as possible, because re-hashing this film to any lengthy degree is just going to continue to frustrate me.
Con #1- There. Was. No. Logical. Plot. This could probably actually summarize all the beef I have with this movie. It's listed as a scary movie, yet none of the following occur: gory moments, pop-out moments, suspenseful moments, or "ah-ha" it all makes sense moments. My theory is that this is designed to be similar in feel to the Blair Witch Project (minus the found footage concept) in that it is supposed to scare you with what you're thinking rather than what you're seeing. Ummm, fail. Epic fail. You can't scare people with their thoughts when they don't know what the f^#@ to think!
This story is supposed to be about a crazy schizophrenic person with three personalities that brutally murdered her brother long before present day. This was revealed to the psychiatrist during session 9 of their documented therapy sessions. The only problem is, if this movie is about PSYCHOSIS, and not POSSESSION, how was this odd third malevolent personality of the dead woman roaming about the facility able to affect others? This movie leads you to believe that the main character is influenced by "Billy", but Billy was a product of the crazy girl's psychosis, not an entity that can influence others. It would be one thing if the institution made everyone crazy in their own way, but to recreate someone's exact schizophrenia in someone else is just stupid and illogical. There are a hundred different ways they could have made this movie work to their advantage, but they chose poorly.
Con #2 - The personalities of the characters were not very believable and almost too focused in the wrong direction. This movie spent SO much time letting you believe that certain characters were the bad guys, that when you found out who it actually was, it made no sense. And not in a good, "Oh, that was a cool twist!" kind of way. More like a, "Umm, okay?" way.
Con #3- You CANNOT just run around an insane asylum and throw a needle in people's eyes to give them a lobotomy. Why? 1) You don't have a license to practice medicine, and 2) That's unhygienic as all get out. Seriously, get some isopropyl alcohol or something.
Wrap up - The moral of the story is...if Netflix rates a movie as a three, it's usually garbage. And David Caruso can't act.
Pros- As I rack my brain trying to come up with a pro for this film, I find myself coming up horribly short. It's a stretch, but one pro was that I was able to watch it from beginning to end. The only reason for that being that I was waiting for something that was never actually bound to happen...a climax or resolution that made sense.
Another pro of this movie was the fact that the CSI Miami star was featured in this film. I bet this is what they saw to make their casting decision for the show, which would also explain why everyone finds David Caruso's character so...interesting. Was his acting good? No, not really. But he was fun to watch mainly because it validates that we aren't being unfairly critical of his cheese-ball-licious performances on his TV melodrama.
Cons- I'm going to try to make this as short and painless as possible, because re-hashing this film to any lengthy degree is just going to continue to frustrate me.
Con #1- There. Was. No. Logical. Plot. This could probably actually summarize all the beef I have with this movie. It's listed as a scary movie, yet none of the following occur: gory moments, pop-out moments, suspenseful moments, or "ah-ha" it all makes sense moments. My theory is that this is designed to be similar in feel to the Blair Witch Project (minus the found footage concept) in that it is supposed to scare you with what you're thinking rather than what you're seeing. Ummm, fail. Epic fail. You can't scare people with their thoughts when they don't know what the f^#@ to think!
This story is supposed to be about a crazy schizophrenic person with three personalities that brutally murdered her brother long before present day. This was revealed to the psychiatrist during session 9 of their documented therapy sessions. The only problem is, if this movie is about PSYCHOSIS, and not POSSESSION, how was this odd third malevolent personality of the dead woman roaming about the facility able to affect others? This movie leads you to believe that the main character is influenced by "Billy", but Billy was a product of the crazy girl's psychosis, not an entity that can influence others. It would be one thing if the institution made everyone crazy in their own way, but to recreate someone's exact schizophrenia in someone else is just stupid and illogical. There are a hundred different ways they could have made this movie work to their advantage, but they chose poorly.
Con #2 - The personalities of the characters were not very believable and almost too focused in the wrong direction. This movie spent SO much time letting you believe that certain characters were the bad guys, that when you found out who it actually was, it made no sense. And not in a good, "Oh, that was a cool twist!" kind of way. More like a, "Umm, okay?" way.
Con #3- You CANNOT just run around an insane asylum and throw a needle in people's eyes to give them a lobotomy. Why? 1) You don't have a license to practice medicine, and 2) That's unhygienic as all get out. Seriously, get some isopropyl alcohol or something.
Wrap up - The moral of the story is...if Netflix rates a movie as a three, it's usually garbage. And David Caruso can't act.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
FIlm Filter: Off - The Possession
Film Filter: Off - I was prompted to see this film by a friend, otherwise I probably wouldn't have gone to watch it. I was pleasantly surprised, seeing as how it follows a very trendy (and often overused) plot-line.
Pros- I definitely have to give props to the cast, as everyone in the film did a really good job of making sure that their characters felt real. The young girl who is featured in the film stood out in particular, as she was the main focus. It's very easy to lose pity for a multi dimensional character when they are poorly played, but she did an excellent job of evoking pity when she was normal, and looking scary as hell when she was possessed.
I thought the music was really creative and well done. Some reviews state that the ominous, low piano transition music was overdone, but I disagree. I liked the simplicity of it, and I think that it worked. It was a nice distraction from the predictable minor orchestral scores you hear too often that allude to distress as soon as they stop or climax.
This movie put a little bit of a twist on possession, as they didn't pursue the Roman Catholic religion. It was, instead, a Jewish family. It was interesting not only because it was unique, but because there was a lot of new information presented in regards to the Jewish faith and its beliefs, which is an untapped resource in regards to possession films. It allowed the film to be successful in all the ways that other exorcism films are, but at the same time set itself apart. Very smart thinking.
Cons- You could almost consider it a pro, but this was the first movie I can recall seeing recently that forced me to actively keep it out of my mind as I went to bed that evening. I'm far beyond the nightmares-from-scary-movies phase, but some things you just can't help being spooked about. Demons, ghosts, and other non-tangible entities are among that for me, thus my fascination with theological thrillers.
Ummm, I'm just going to come right out and say it: the polish spirit-demon-thing looked like a dying Lord Voldemort from the last Harry Potter movie. While we're talking about it, it baffles me to no end how the mother was able to see the face of the spirit inside the girl during the MRI that the she had. That was just a little too tangible for my mind to wrap around.
While we're talking about frustrating, I found it odd that the husband didn't just tell the wife what he suspected. It was obvious that they still cared for each other, so she probably would have at least listened to what he had to say. Frustrating again was the fact that he didn't leave the basketball practice to go see his daughter perform. Not that it was a critical plot point in the story, but the assistant coach is even reminding him about it...better late than never, right?
Wrap up- This is a really good movie. If you want to get a little spooked at the movies, along with an interesting story, I would highly recommend it.
Pros- I definitely have to give props to the cast, as everyone in the film did a really good job of making sure that their characters felt real. The young girl who is featured in the film stood out in particular, as she was the main focus. It's very easy to lose pity for a multi dimensional character when they are poorly played, but she did an excellent job of evoking pity when she was normal, and looking scary as hell when she was possessed.
I thought the music was really creative and well done. Some reviews state that the ominous, low piano transition music was overdone, but I disagree. I liked the simplicity of it, and I think that it worked. It was a nice distraction from the predictable minor orchestral scores you hear too often that allude to distress as soon as they stop or climax.
This movie put a little bit of a twist on possession, as they didn't pursue the Roman Catholic religion. It was, instead, a Jewish family. It was interesting not only because it was unique, but because there was a lot of new information presented in regards to the Jewish faith and its beliefs, which is an untapped resource in regards to possession films. It allowed the film to be successful in all the ways that other exorcism films are, but at the same time set itself apart. Very smart thinking.
Cons- You could almost consider it a pro, but this was the first movie I can recall seeing recently that forced me to actively keep it out of my mind as I went to bed that evening. I'm far beyond the nightmares-from-scary-movies phase, but some things you just can't help being spooked about. Demons, ghosts, and other non-tangible entities are among that for me, thus my fascination with theological thrillers.
Ummm, I'm just going to come right out and say it: the polish spirit-demon-thing looked like a dying Lord Voldemort from the last Harry Potter movie. While we're talking about it, it baffles me to no end how the mother was able to see the face of the spirit inside the girl during the MRI that the she had. That was just a little too tangible for my mind to wrap around.
While we're talking about frustrating, I found it odd that the husband didn't just tell the wife what he suspected. It was obvious that they still cared for each other, so she probably would have at least listened to what he had to say. Frustrating again was the fact that he didn't leave the basketball practice to go see his daughter perform. Not that it was a critical plot point in the story, but the assistant coach is even reminding him about it...better late than never, right?
Wrap up- This is a really good movie. If you want to get a little spooked at the movies, along with an interesting story, I would highly recommend it.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Film Filter: Off - Madison County
Film Filter: Off- The cover of this film has a picture of a serial killer wearing a pig mask...need I further defend my decision?
Pros- Okay, so this movie is definitely not as terrible as I thought it was going to be. It's certainly not good, but it's something that most people could probably tolerate.
One of the things that was enjoyable about the film was its believability in regards to the character interactions. Sure, there was the once in awhile stereotypical statement, but for the most part the characters co-existed with each other in a manner that made sense.
Another thing that was a slight surprise was the independence of the male lead character to not follow all of the stereotypical rules. When a creepy guy in a truck comes to aid you by the side of the road and offers a "short-cut" to their destination, it's usually not a great idea to listen to him. Kudos, James. Kudos.
On a side note, 96% of the film is in broad daylight. Thinking outside of the box...I like it.
Cons- As with most slasher flicks, there is a massive amount of predictable, stupid situations that the characters could have avoided had they had a collective IQ higher than the Madison County speed limit.
Where shall I begin? The idiocy doesn't really ensue until Will takes a photo in the woods and sees someone creepin' in the shrubs. Hey, you're in the forest, and this is crazy: you saw a creeper...tell someone, maybe? Or not. Maybe if others had known there was someone following them, they would have been more apt to make intelligent decisions.
Next is the splitting up. I can slightly see their perspective in that they weren't really in danger when they started to split up, but there's a general rule of thumb that strength in numbers is better than getting brutally murdered. Just sayin'. Not only do they split into smaller groups, but once they're in groups of twos, they split even further to one on one. It's like a mitosis of retardation.
So there are two chicks in this movie...one who understands the principles of mass preservation, and one who does not. Fortunately for the one who does not, her ass gets saved by the smart one who distracts the little piggy when he gets too close to the moron. When moron girl realizes she's safe, she goes to follow him when she sees her smart friend injured and about to be hacked up. So what does she do?
a) dumb bitch tires to tackle him from behind, then picks up his axe and slices him up like bacon
b) dumb bitch calls for him to follow her like her friend did, to give her a chance to run away
c) dumb bitch tries to save her friend by picking her up and carrying her through the woods
d) dumb bitch acts like a dumb bitch and just stands there
Yeah, you guessed it. D. *sigh* I'm not even going to elaborate because it's too frustrating.
Wrap up- As I mentioned, this movie is not as awful as I initially expected. That being said, it's frustrating as hell. However, most of the pros outweigh the cons (at least to the degree where I don't consistently feel like I wish I were the one dying so I wouldn't have to suffer throughout the rest of the film).
Pros- Okay, so this movie is definitely not as terrible as I thought it was going to be. It's certainly not good, but it's something that most people could probably tolerate.
One of the things that was enjoyable about the film was its believability in regards to the character interactions. Sure, there was the once in awhile stereotypical statement, but for the most part the characters co-existed with each other in a manner that made sense.
Another thing that was a slight surprise was the independence of the male lead character to not follow all of the stereotypical rules. When a creepy guy in a truck comes to aid you by the side of the road and offers a "short-cut" to their destination, it's usually not a great idea to listen to him. Kudos, James. Kudos.
On a side note, 96% of the film is in broad daylight. Thinking outside of the box...I like it.
Cons- As with most slasher flicks, there is a massive amount of predictable, stupid situations that the characters could have avoided had they had a collective IQ higher than the Madison County speed limit.
Where shall I begin? The idiocy doesn't really ensue until Will takes a photo in the woods and sees someone creepin' in the shrubs. Hey, you're in the forest, and this is crazy: you saw a creeper...tell someone, maybe? Or not. Maybe if others had known there was someone following them, they would have been more apt to make intelligent decisions.
Next is the splitting up. I can slightly see their perspective in that they weren't really in danger when they started to split up, but there's a general rule of thumb that strength in numbers is better than getting brutally murdered. Just sayin'. Not only do they split into smaller groups, but once they're in groups of twos, they split even further to one on one. It's like a mitosis of retardation.
So there are two chicks in this movie...one who understands the principles of mass preservation, and one who does not. Fortunately for the one who does not, her ass gets saved by the smart one who distracts the little piggy when he gets too close to the moron. When moron girl realizes she's safe, she goes to follow him when she sees her smart friend injured and about to be hacked up. So what does she do?
a) dumb bitch tires to tackle him from behind, then picks up his axe and slices him up like bacon
b) dumb bitch calls for him to follow her like her friend did, to give her a chance to run away
c) dumb bitch tries to save her friend by picking her up and carrying her through the woods
d) dumb bitch acts like a dumb bitch and just stands there
Yeah, you guessed it. D. *sigh* I'm not even going to elaborate because it's too frustrating.
Wrap up- As I mentioned, this movie is not as awful as I initially expected. That being said, it's frustrating as hell. However, most of the pros outweigh the cons (at least to the degree where I don't consistently feel like I wish I were the one dying so I wouldn't have to suffer throughout the rest of the film).
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Film Filter: Off - The Mothman Prophecies
Film Filter: Off - I watched this film for the first time a long while ago with a good friend, and to be honest, it scared the bejeezus out of me. After recently re-watching it, it still spooked me a little, but I do have a different view of it as an adult from that of when I was a teenager.
Pros- First off, I have yet to see a movie starring Richard Gere where he does not do a commendable job with his role. Maybe that means he's a great actor, or maybe that means I haven't seen enough Richard Gere films, but he definitely pulls his weight in this film, as he is present in nearly every scene from beginning to end.
If you've read any of my other posts, you'll understand that I am fascinated with symbolism. Hidden graphics, colors, underlying themes and the like are intriguing to me, as it presents another level of depth to the film. This movie is by no means void of symbolism, which is one of the reasons why I enjoy it.
This next piece is, like many things in my reviews, a personal opinion. Although scary movies that contain blood, gore, and creatures popping out for cheap scares are sometimes good and often scary, I find myself more drawn to subdued fear that is susceptible to actually occurring. With my self-created genre of theological thrillers, the horror is not as deep with the actual film as it is with the thought process of the events occurring in the film actually happening. Most of us have succumbed to the fact that a masked murderer wearing a pig faced mask isn't going to be hiding in our garage, but the probability of demons, possession, ghosts, spirits and supernatural forces are something that I think could be more of a distinct possibility. Maybe that's just me, but it usually ends up scaring me more, because it falls into the category of the unknown, and what's scarier than something that you have no control over?
The cinematography was great, especially when showing perspective changes and demonstrating the eerie scenery in many of the scenes.
Cons- One of the major things that is wrong with this film that I started to see more recently is its inability to commit to a specific content. If I were to describe the film to you, it would more or less be a series of short stories or events pertaining to the Mothman, of which Richard Gere's character (John Klein) is a common link to. The focus of the film in that regard, is often unclear.
One of the other things about this movie that sort of confuses me is the ability for this supernatural mothman to have people who are dead show up in a tangible form. I can sort of understand the hearing of the deceased person's voice, as that can be something that could be manufactured by some outside force, but there's a big stretch between that and seeing said dead person walking the streets of West Virginia. That is pushing it, in my opinion.
Wrap up- Overall, I still enjoy this movie. Is it, at times, unrealistic and unfocused? Yes, but I think the pros outweigh the cons in this instance.
Pros- First off, I have yet to see a movie starring Richard Gere where he does not do a commendable job with his role. Maybe that means he's a great actor, or maybe that means I haven't seen enough Richard Gere films, but he definitely pulls his weight in this film, as he is present in nearly every scene from beginning to end.
If you've read any of my other posts, you'll understand that I am fascinated with symbolism. Hidden graphics, colors, underlying themes and the like are intriguing to me, as it presents another level of depth to the film. This movie is by no means void of symbolism, which is one of the reasons why I enjoy it.
This next piece is, like many things in my reviews, a personal opinion. Although scary movies that contain blood, gore, and creatures popping out for cheap scares are sometimes good and often scary, I find myself more drawn to subdued fear that is susceptible to actually occurring. With my self-created genre of theological thrillers, the horror is not as deep with the actual film as it is with the thought process of the events occurring in the film actually happening. Most of us have succumbed to the fact that a masked murderer wearing a pig faced mask isn't going to be hiding in our garage, but the probability of demons, possession, ghosts, spirits and supernatural forces are something that I think could be more of a distinct possibility. Maybe that's just me, but it usually ends up scaring me more, because it falls into the category of the unknown, and what's scarier than something that you have no control over?
The cinematography was great, especially when showing perspective changes and demonstrating the eerie scenery in many of the scenes.
Cons- One of the major things that is wrong with this film that I started to see more recently is its inability to commit to a specific content. If I were to describe the film to you, it would more or less be a series of short stories or events pertaining to the Mothman, of which Richard Gere's character (John Klein) is a common link to. The focus of the film in that regard, is often unclear.
One of the other things about this movie that sort of confuses me is the ability for this supernatural mothman to have people who are dead show up in a tangible form. I can sort of understand the hearing of the deceased person's voice, as that can be something that could be manufactured by some outside force, but there's a big stretch between that and seeing said dead person walking the streets of West Virginia. That is pushing it, in my opinion.
Wrap up- Overall, I still enjoy this movie. Is it, at times, unrealistic and unfocused? Yes, but I think the pros outweigh the cons in this instance.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Film Filter: Off - Silent House
Film Filter: Off - This was one of those films that had a very vague synopsis, so it was pretty impossible to categorize off the bat. After watching the film though, it's clear that although the movie is indeed a suspenseful horror film, there is a much deeper meaning and intent behind it.
Pros- This film definitely has a lot going for it. I will say that it is impossible to make this type of film work without having a strong lead, which Sarah (Elizabeth Olsen) really delivered. She was actually going about escape and hiding in an intellectual way, rather than the stereotypical running and screaming.
This movie had a relatively small cast- about five characters total. The cast did a very good job of making dialogue and interactions very believable, especially in the beginning. It was easy to get involved with the characters, as they were acting like normal human beings, and felt real.
Although this movie had a stereotypical setting of an abandoned house with no electricity and no cell phone reception, the way they brought it up was more believable than I would have thought.
Doing this film in one, single shot with no cuts must have been grueling. The movie itself was good enough that you really didn't notice, but if you re-watch a scene or two and think about the job of the camera man and the actors...it's pretty mind-blowing.
I certainly have my feelings about a scene or two towards the end of the film, but I thought where the film ended up in terms of content was pretty brilliant. Did I think the evolution from beginning to end was perfectly executed? Absolutely not. In the end, though, the directors and screenwriter made a successful scary movie about something real, and something thought provoking. Kudos.
Cons- While the single action shot was really cool and very well done, it made it hard to see things sometimes, and the directors themselves even stated that there was a symbolic item in the background of a scene that didn't get seen because of it. It's also hard to, from an analytical standpoint, figure out the perspective of the film. Is it third person, since Sarah is being seen on screen so much? Is it first person, since we get to see things from her perspective at times? It's a bit confusing to me, and while I'm glad they could make the film work in one shot (and am not sure if they could have maintained a single perspective with that goal in mind) it was annoying at times.
There was WAY too much time spent on Sarah running and hiding from creepy people in her house. There was also a lot of time spent on her trying to break out. You may be thinking, "Well, Corri, it is a movie about intruders, after all. That's what people do when strangers are in their house." Yeah, I know, but pick an option. Spend all your efforts on either escaping, or hiding and waiting them out. Even though she wasn't an idiot about either, doing both just wastes time, and limits your commitment to one or the other. Plus it's like watching paint dry to the audience.
There is this one scene that I just don't get. Everything in the film seems so realistic, but in one bathroom shot she is seeing weird people in the tub and a toilet on the wall spewing blood. I think I know why the scene was so abstract, but to me it took away from the film's attempt to feel real.
Wrap up- Overall, I would highly recommend this film. It is very different from what you will ordinarily get from a scary movie, and the cast does a great job. Plus, it's based (veeeerrrrrry loosely) on true events.
Pros- This film definitely has a lot going for it. I will say that it is impossible to make this type of film work without having a strong lead, which Sarah (Elizabeth Olsen) really delivered. She was actually going about escape and hiding in an intellectual way, rather than the stereotypical running and screaming.
This movie had a relatively small cast- about five characters total. The cast did a very good job of making dialogue and interactions very believable, especially in the beginning. It was easy to get involved with the characters, as they were acting like normal human beings, and felt real.
Although this movie had a stereotypical setting of an abandoned house with no electricity and no cell phone reception, the way they brought it up was more believable than I would have thought.
Doing this film in one, single shot with no cuts must have been grueling. The movie itself was good enough that you really didn't notice, but if you re-watch a scene or two and think about the job of the camera man and the actors...it's pretty mind-blowing.
I certainly have my feelings about a scene or two towards the end of the film, but I thought where the film ended up in terms of content was pretty brilliant. Did I think the evolution from beginning to end was perfectly executed? Absolutely not. In the end, though, the directors and screenwriter made a successful scary movie about something real, and something thought provoking. Kudos.
Cons- While the single action shot was really cool and very well done, it made it hard to see things sometimes, and the directors themselves even stated that there was a symbolic item in the background of a scene that didn't get seen because of it. It's also hard to, from an analytical standpoint, figure out the perspective of the film. Is it third person, since Sarah is being seen on screen so much? Is it first person, since we get to see things from her perspective at times? It's a bit confusing to me, and while I'm glad they could make the film work in one shot (and am not sure if they could have maintained a single perspective with that goal in mind) it was annoying at times.
There was WAY too much time spent on Sarah running and hiding from creepy people in her house. There was also a lot of time spent on her trying to break out. You may be thinking, "Well, Corri, it is a movie about intruders, after all. That's what people do when strangers are in their house." Yeah, I know, but pick an option. Spend all your efforts on either escaping, or hiding and waiting them out. Even though she wasn't an idiot about either, doing both just wastes time, and limits your commitment to one or the other. Plus it's like watching paint dry to the audience.
There is this one scene that I just don't get. Everything in the film seems so realistic, but in one bathroom shot she is seeing weird people in the tub and a toilet on the wall spewing blood. I think I know why the scene was so abstract, but to me it took away from the film's attempt to feel real.
Wrap up- Overall, I would highly recommend this film. It is very different from what you will ordinarily get from a scary movie, and the cast does a great job. Plus, it's based (veeeerrrrrry loosely) on true events.
Monday, August 20, 2012
Film Filter: Off - The Human Centipede
Film Filter: Off- I decided to watch this film based
upon the fact that I seemed to keep hearing about it everywhere I turned. It sounded like it was an extremely
different film, so I ventured forth.
Pros- I
will say, for reasons you will probably assume or figure out shortly, this film
was pretty captivating. As soon as
you pressed play, you were pretty much committed until the ending.
In terms of characters, it was a little hard for me to
decide if I liked them or not.
Upon actually thinking about the situations they were placed in I
decided that, like it or not, it was hard not to get emotionally invested in
some of them. Despite the fact
that the two leading ladies were stereotypically idiotic, most of the
characters in the film were played as well as they could have been in their
retrospective circumstances.
Cons- The
first thing that jumped out at me as ridiculous was the very opening of the
movie. Two stupid girls are vacationing
in Europe and decide to meet up with a stranger at a party. They get lost in their car, run into a
ditch and pop their tire, and have no cellular reception (this is a very unique
plot so far). Upon realizing that
their car “broke down” (seriously?
It’s a flat tire…it didn’t break down, dumbass) they decide to just sit
and wait it out for a bit, all the while freaking out and trying to figure out
what their next course of action will be.
They decide to walk. In the
woods. At night. In the middle of nowhere. For real? If it were that severe of a life or death circumstance,
couldn’t they just…drive on three wheels until they reached civilization? Paying for a busted rental car sucks,
but it’s definitely second rate punishment to rape, death, or whatever they are
about to waltz into. Oh, and neither
of them know how to change a tire, obviously. All these girls really need is a life skills 101 class, but
since the two of them only have an ounce of common sense between the two of
them, their fate is sealed.
Ok, on to the gritty part of the story. Although the maniacal German doctor was
actually played pretty well, it was pseudo annoying that he didn’t have any
kind of back-story. We clearly
understand that the guy is nuts, but it would have been kind of empathetic to
know why.
In terms of the two leading ladies, I feel as though one of them was enough of a fighter to try to get out of the situation, while the other one was sort of lethargic about it. While begging and pleading seem like an instinctive option, it’s pretty clear that if you’re in the basement torture chamber of a mad surgeon, he’s probably not going to just release you because he feels bad. (In fact, it’s pretty safe to say that he really doesn’t feel anything close to a human emotion.) The smart girl did end up escaping, but then felt bad so she went back to save her dumb friend. That’s a tough moral dilemma…I feel like if she had continued escaping and hadn’t gone back, she could have gotten the proper authorities to have stopped this psycho, which would have helped her unconscious friend more than pseudo dragging her outside and getting them both caught. That may make me seem heartless, but you have to play to your strengths. I’m a fast runner, and time is of the essence when you’re left alone in a torture chamber. If you’re waking from being unconscious, you also have no idea how long it has been since the doctor was last present. So, to then try to escape and drag your half-comatose friend along with you is just not playing the odds. Plus, it’s going to piss off Dr. Crazy.
In terms of the two leading ladies, I feel as though one of them was enough of a fighter to try to get out of the situation, while the other one was sort of lethargic about it. While begging and pleading seem like an instinctive option, it’s pretty clear that if you’re in the basement torture chamber of a mad surgeon, he’s probably not going to just release you because he feels bad. (In fact, it’s pretty safe to say that he really doesn’t feel anything close to a human emotion.) The smart girl did end up escaping, but then felt bad so she went back to save her dumb friend. That’s a tough moral dilemma…I feel like if she had continued escaping and hadn’t gone back, she could have gotten the proper authorities to have stopped this psycho, which would have helped her unconscious friend more than pseudo dragging her outside and getting them both caught. That may make me seem heartless, but you have to play to your strengths. I’m a fast runner, and time is of the essence when you’re left alone in a torture chamber. If you’re waking from being unconscious, you also have no idea how long it has been since the doctor was last present. So, to then try to escape and drag your half-comatose friend along with you is just not playing the odds. Plus, it’s going to piss off Dr. Crazy.
Oh, and the two detectives are STUPID. If you’re visiting a person you suspect
of kidnapping and possibly murder, don’t drink their roofie water. And, when you come back with a proper
search warrant, don’t stupidly burst into a room and just stand there. There’s a gun-holding, door-kicking,
flashlight-wielding protocol that even I know
of from watching umpteen police dramas, and if you don’t follow it, you’ll get
shot. Der.
Wrap up- Everything else about the movie is pretty
straightforward and gross. If you
want details, it’s something that you’re really going to have to watch, because
I don’t have the mental endurance to be able to recreate it via blog. Overall, because of its disgust level,
it’s hard to take your eyes off of the screen, and you really want to know what happens to the victims, so you’re pretty
much stuck until the credits. Does
the fact that you’re enticed to watch it from beginning to end make it a good
movie? No, and it’s still gross as
hell, but if you’re making a bucket list you may want to add watching this film
to it. I can guarantee it’s unlike
anything else you’ve ever seen.
Friday, July 13, 2012
Film Filter: Off - Fallen
Film Filter: Off Again, I reviewed one of my favorite movies, partially due to the fact that this falls into my made-up genre of "Theological Thrillers". This film is also great because it is so much more than it seems on the surface; it's the definition of a diamond in the rough.
Pros- Having Denzel as the leading man really enhances just about any film. He does a fantastic job, as Denzel always does, and it doesn't hurt that the story line is very good.
To go off of that, the plot (and evolution of said plot) plays a very important part in several aspects of the film. There are MANY small roles, for example, that play big parts in the evolution of this story, and the directors did a good job of making that happen smoothly. The narration is also a very important part of the story, and if you've watched the movie more than once you truly appreciate it that much more.
In terms of characters, there were a few big actors featured in this film. I'd have to say, with the exception of some, the smaller characters are what really push this film out of the great and into excellent category. In order for the film to work properly, seemingly innocent people need to sporadically take on a drastic, malevolent personality change. They selected those individuals quite well, and they all executed their role with a creepy believability, along with a smooth transition back to normalcy.
The entire situation involving Denzel's character, Detective John Hobbes, is expertly unfolded. As he is antagonized, it little by little becomes harassment, then further unveils to threats and being set-up. While this interesting plot is happening on the surface, there is also a much darker, ancient story happening that intertwines with it. Pairing that with sprinklings of past circumstances in the precinct, and specific details regarding the murders, this story becomes a tri-level tale of good vs. evil.
Last, but never least, is the fantastic ending. I don't really want to give it away, but it is definitely unexpected, and makes the whole movie that much deeper.
Cons- I don't really have any, other than one thing that is a slight annoyance more than a con. Is John Hobbes' brother slow? I can't really tell. At some points, I think it's obvious that he is, and at other times I wonder if he's just supposed to be a quirky character.
Wrap up- This film is a must see for the Theological Thriller fan. It really is a one-of-a-kind film.
Pros- Having Denzel as the leading man really enhances just about any film. He does a fantastic job, as Denzel always does, and it doesn't hurt that the story line is very good.
To go off of that, the plot (and evolution of said plot) plays a very important part in several aspects of the film. There are MANY small roles, for example, that play big parts in the evolution of this story, and the directors did a good job of making that happen smoothly. The narration is also a very important part of the story, and if you've watched the movie more than once you truly appreciate it that much more.
In terms of characters, there were a few big actors featured in this film. I'd have to say, with the exception of some, the smaller characters are what really push this film out of the great and into excellent category. In order for the film to work properly, seemingly innocent people need to sporadically take on a drastic, malevolent personality change. They selected those individuals quite well, and they all executed their role with a creepy believability, along with a smooth transition back to normalcy.
The entire situation involving Denzel's character, Detective John Hobbes, is expertly unfolded. As he is antagonized, it little by little becomes harassment, then further unveils to threats and being set-up. While this interesting plot is happening on the surface, there is also a much darker, ancient story happening that intertwines with it. Pairing that with sprinklings of past circumstances in the precinct, and specific details regarding the murders, this story becomes a tri-level tale of good vs. evil.
Last, but never least, is the fantastic ending. I don't really want to give it away, but it is definitely unexpected, and makes the whole movie that much deeper.
Cons- I don't really have any, other than one thing that is a slight annoyance more than a con. Is John Hobbes' brother slow? I can't really tell. At some points, I think it's obvious that he is, and at other times I wonder if he's just supposed to be a quirky character.
Wrap up- This film is a must see for the Theological Thriller fan. It really is a one-of-a-kind film.
Film Filter: Off - Primal Fear
Film Filter: Off- I remember stumbling across this film when I was about 14 or 15 years old while my mom was watching it. I caught it about half way through, and it has since been one of my all time favorite movies, along with being the film that brought Edward Norton's acting prowess to my attention.
Pros- The cast in this film did a spectacular job delivering the roles they were given, particularly Norton. I'm a firm believer that, being his first big film, this is the movie that jump-started his career. Others may argue that it was Fight Club, but I counter that he never would have gotten that role if he had not first played Aaron Stampler in this film.
The story is interesting, interwoven, and impeccably played out. Although the movie can't take credit for that, since it was a book first, I would argue that this movie does the book justice. After I read it, I'll let you know.
By far and away the best part of this film is the way it ends. I can't say anything more or I'll spoil it, but it's what makes this film my favorite.
Cons- Keeping in mind that this movie is from the mid nineties, the following are more or less idiosyncrasies of the era rather than actual complaints.
The chase scene music is like the Seinfeld theme song meets a faulty electronic drum machine. Ick.
Some of the dialogue is a little cheesy, it probably worked within the confines of the book, but the movie didn't allow it to transition smoothly.
Wrap up- Overall, this movie needs to be seen if you haven't already done so. I mean, even the idiots on Netflix rated it 5 stars. If you like crime thrillers, and if you like Edward Norton, this is a must-see.
Pros- The cast in this film did a spectacular job delivering the roles they were given, particularly Norton. I'm a firm believer that, being his first big film, this is the movie that jump-started his career. Others may argue that it was Fight Club, but I counter that he never would have gotten that role if he had not first played Aaron Stampler in this film.
The story is interesting, interwoven, and impeccably played out. Although the movie can't take credit for that, since it was a book first, I would argue that this movie does the book justice. After I read it, I'll let you know.
By far and away the best part of this film is the way it ends. I can't say anything more or I'll spoil it, but it's what makes this film my favorite.
Cons- Keeping in mind that this movie is from the mid nineties, the following are more or less idiosyncrasies of the era rather than actual complaints.
The chase scene music is like the Seinfeld theme song meets a faulty electronic drum machine. Ick.
Some of the dialogue is a little cheesy, it probably worked within the confines of the book, but the movie didn't allow it to transition smoothly.
Wrap up- Overall, this movie needs to be seen if you haven't already done so. I mean, even the idiots on Netflix rated it 5 stars. If you like crime thrillers, and if you like Edward Norton, this is a must-see.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Film Filter: Off - Horror Movie 101: Lesson Learned
What piece of advice have YOU received from horror films?
I'll start.
So I drive a 2006 PT Cruiser named Pheobe. She's periwinkle, and the inside of her is like a walking advertisement for Waste Management, but we still love each other. A lot of times people ask me why I selected her for my automobile, and I give a lot of reasons. "I like the color." "She was affordable." "I like to drive mini-hearses in bizarre colors." etc. Well, few people know the real reason I selected Pheobe, so feel honored by your now inclusion to this elite group.
 |
| THE PHEOBS |
While, no, I don't care all that much about make, model, color, interior, or other superfluous aspects of vehicles, there is one attribute that is non-negotiable: having four doors.
Is it starting to click, yet?
In the back of my twisted, overly paranoid (yet logical!) mind, my adult self is reverting back to the hundreds of scary movies I have seen that involve some sort of chase between the villain and the victim. Let me paint a worst-case-scenario picture for you:
Three of my friends and I are walking to my car from a long day at the beach. It's a two-door Honda Civic. All of a sudden (gasp!) Swamp-Man appears on the shore, and begins chasing us down! Struggling to sprint in flip flops, two of us make it to the car ahead of the others...and Swamp-Man is right on their tails! The other two finally make it to the car but, in my panic, I've dropped the keys! I have just enough time to open the door, unlock the passenger door, and then there is a split second to make a life or death decision:
 |
| AHHH! |
Option 1: Should I fold back the seats and let the slow pokes in, leaving my other friend and I vulnerable? If we get killed first, then the doors remain open and unlocked for Swamp-Man to reach my other friends. Besides, we all know how long it actually takes for people to get behind the retarded folding seats: too long. Not only will my quick-like-a-fox friend and I surely perish, but there's a more than good chance we all will. No bueno.
Option 2: Should I hop in with the shotgun passenger and leave the other two stranded? If I hop in with my (not slow) friend and immediately lock the doors, my other two friends may have a chance to escape if they can run. Plus, I now have the opportunity to try to run Swamp-Man over with my car, provided he doesn't have absurd Jeepers Creepers like jumping abilities.
As you can see, option 2 is the winner here. Will my friends maybe die? Yes, and that would suck, but the survival rate overall would improve, and we have to think globally in these times of distress.
Here's the beautiful thing, though. With Pheobe, I don't have to choose between my friends living or dying! Provided I never travel with more than four people, my sufficiently-doored PT Cruiser has enough room for everyone to survive and that, my friends, is my Horror Movie 101: Lesson Learned-
ALWAYS HAVE A FOUR DOOR VEHICLE!
(Unless you're a selfish prick and want your friends to die.)
So...it's your turn! Now YOU get to tell ME what life lessons you've taken out of horror flicks. Comment on my post, or e-mail me at chiapet_45@hotmail.com to let me know! I'll take the top ones and post them on my blog for all to read, but in order for that to happen, you've got to get in touch with me. I'm dying to hear from you. :)
-Corri
Film Filter: Off - The Others
The Others PG-13 (2001)
Film Filter: Off- This film appears to be dark, mysterious, and has all the right ingredients to the recipe to be scary. After ingredients are prepared according to directions, however, it disappoints.
Pros- Nicole Kidman and the two children deliver very believable and hearty performances. Overall, the entire cast does an excellent job portraying their characters and administering to the dialogue, which is good since speaking envelops most of the film.
The setup for the setting is quite clever as well. Similar to The Woman in Black, this story is successful in its ability to be true to an unfamiliar time period to most of the viewers of the film. When done properly, this concept can prove to enhance the level of fear by the audience, due to the idiosyncrasies of the time period i.e. no electricity, no phones, no neighbors, etc. It was also an interesting, and useful, twist that the children were allergic to light. This required most of the scenes to take place during the dark, which (voila!) is a naturally occurring, perfect set up to a scary movie.
I will say that for the few shortcomings the film offers, the ending makes up for it. A very good twist ending that I didn't see coming.
Cons- For a scary movie...this film is pretty damn un-scary. With the exception of one part, that you could argue is more freakish than actually frightening, there really is a lot to be desired in this film. A lot of the suspenseful portions were just things going bump in the night, doors closing unexpectedly, and unexplained seeings from the daughter's perspective. While these components are all well and good for a scary movie build up, they are left to dangle while there is no follow through on actually seeing or experiencing these things first hand. Unless you want to do the Paranormal Activity route and use the "found footage" genre that is catching like wildfire, it is very difficult to make a movie that is "scary" without SHOWING the audience something.
Wrap up- This is not a bad movie, if you're looking for a suspenseful drama with a slow moving plot and lots of dialogue. Definitely not for the average thrill seeking, scary movie veteran, though.
Film Filter: Off- This film appears to be dark, mysterious, and has all the right ingredients to the recipe to be scary. After ingredients are prepared according to directions, however, it disappoints.
Pros- Nicole Kidman and the two children deliver very believable and hearty performances. Overall, the entire cast does an excellent job portraying their characters and administering to the dialogue, which is good since speaking envelops most of the film.
The setup for the setting is quite clever as well. Similar to The Woman in Black, this story is successful in its ability to be true to an unfamiliar time period to most of the viewers of the film. When done properly, this concept can prove to enhance the level of fear by the audience, due to the idiosyncrasies of the time period i.e. no electricity, no phones, no neighbors, etc. It was also an interesting, and useful, twist that the children were allergic to light. This required most of the scenes to take place during the dark, which (voila!) is a naturally occurring, perfect set up to a scary movie.
I will say that for the few shortcomings the film offers, the ending makes up for it. A very good twist ending that I didn't see coming.
Cons- For a scary movie...this film is pretty damn un-scary. With the exception of one part, that you could argue is more freakish than actually frightening, there really is a lot to be desired in this film. A lot of the suspenseful portions were just things going bump in the night, doors closing unexpectedly, and unexplained seeings from the daughter's perspective. While these components are all well and good for a scary movie build up, they are left to dangle while there is no follow through on actually seeing or experiencing these things first hand. Unless you want to do the Paranormal Activity route and use the "found footage" genre that is catching like wildfire, it is very difficult to make a movie that is "scary" without SHOWING the audience something.
Wrap up- This is not a bad movie, if you're looking for a suspenseful drama with a slow moving plot and lots of dialogue. Definitely not for the average thrill seeking, scary movie veteran, though.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Film FIlter: Off - Shutter Island
Film Filter: Off- Unlike the norm, I actually read this book before the movie. I have a theory that, if you read a book AFTER watching the movie, you'll never be disappointed because the book is almost always better. I broke my cardinal rule in this case, though, and it didn't really matter all that much because both were quite good.
Pros- Having Leonardo DiCaprio on board as a leading actor pretty much slates your movie as incapable of doing wrong...unless it's the Beach. But, Leo again does not fail to put forth yet another amazing performance in his Bahston accent as Federal marshall Teddy Daniels. Mark Ruffalo also does a perfect job as his simpleton sidekick, who seems to just be along for the ride.
The story line itself is a good one, but the movie does a good job of bringing it to life. The cinematography is pretty good, and the scenery is believable. The pacing of the story, like any book to movie transition, is a little choppy and leaves parts out. Again, the movie does a good job of seaming together the important parts so that the audience won't even notice the little gaps in the plot.
The music selection for the film is ever so simple, but it WORKS. I liked the low, minor string selections. The job of movie music in my mind, provided it's not thematic like Star Wars or other John Williams scores, is to be such a good fit that you hardly recognize it's there at all. Just like special effects, they should be there to enhance the film, but shouldn't be the forefront of it. Kudos, music team, kudos.
The ending. I can't give the movie credit for that, obviously, but I can give the movie credit for the things they did well to set up for the ending. Much like Inception, you really need to watch this movie twice to fully appreciate what has been done.
Cons- I will say that some of the flashback scenes become awkward at times. I can't really pinpoint why, but there's something about them that doesn't flow smoothly to me. Keeping in mind that they're either dreams or flashbacks, it's a very nitpicky statement because I'm sure the director deliberately affected the scenes to make them stand out as "not reality".
Wrap up- This is a fantastic movie to watch, but it's definitely an intellect's horror film. It's not the knid of movie to just pop in for a quick scare, but one you really have to pull apart and think about. Great cast, good dialogue, awesome carrying out of a well written story, and a great ending.
Pros- Having Leonardo DiCaprio on board as a leading actor pretty much slates your movie as incapable of doing wrong...unless it's the Beach. But, Leo again does not fail to put forth yet another amazing performance in his Bahston accent as Federal marshall Teddy Daniels. Mark Ruffalo also does a perfect job as his simpleton sidekick, who seems to just be along for the ride.
The story line itself is a good one, but the movie does a good job of bringing it to life. The cinematography is pretty good, and the scenery is believable. The pacing of the story, like any book to movie transition, is a little choppy and leaves parts out. Again, the movie does a good job of seaming together the important parts so that the audience won't even notice the little gaps in the plot.
The music selection for the film is ever so simple, but it WORKS. I liked the low, minor string selections. The job of movie music in my mind, provided it's not thematic like Star Wars or other John Williams scores, is to be such a good fit that you hardly recognize it's there at all. Just like special effects, they should be there to enhance the film, but shouldn't be the forefront of it. Kudos, music team, kudos.
The ending. I can't give the movie credit for that, obviously, but I can give the movie credit for the things they did well to set up for the ending. Much like Inception, you really need to watch this movie twice to fully appreciate what has been done.
Cons- I will say that some of the flashback scenes become awkward at times. I can't really pinpoint why, but there's something about them that doesn't flow smoothly to me. Keeping in mind that they're either dreams or flashbacks, it's a very nitpicky statement because I'm sure the director deliberately affected the scenes to make them stand out as "not reality".
Wrap up- This is a fantastic movie to watch, but it's definitely an intellect's horror film. It's not the knid of movie to just pop in for a quick scare, but one you really have to pull apart and think about. Great cast, good dialogue, awesome carrying out of a well written story, and a great ending.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Film Filter: Off - 7 Below
Film Filter: Off- This movie looked very promising. It included Val Kilmer in the cast, who I feel hasn't done a hit movie in eons, and an enticing story line about a century old house where a family was slaughtered. All in all, I feel like you can't go wrong with that plot...but somehow they did.
Pros- My only pro would be that the Latina woman was hot, but the problem was that she facially favored Eva Mendes and let's face it- this girl didn't even come close to that level of gorgeousness. For the first time I can remember, I have zero pros for a film. Cue slow clap.
Cons- Okay, here's the shortened version of the plethora of things wrong with this film. I'll break it down via the interrogative words lesson I learned, circa 3rd grade.
Who?- Val Kilmer. Fat. Enough said. I kid, but really, the former Batman leading man has let himself gooooo. Plus his role in this film is pretty douche-y, and he is only featured in it for a grand total of about 11 minutes. False advertising. Also, Ving Rhames is in a weeeeeeird role that I don't really think anyone could do justice with but thanks for playing, Ving. The rest of the cast is pretty much a collection of no name actors that even IMDB couldn't scrounge up any information on. Tsk tsk.
What?- What the $&#? is more like it. This film is SO poorly done that I don't even know where to begin. Let's start with really bad, unbelievable acting of TERRIBLY constructed characters with zero depth, and lack of believable relationships between characters which, let's face it, can't really happen well if your characters suck to begin with. Throw into the mix poorly done and highly predictable death scenes and pop out moments and you have yourself the most boring, translucent horror film that I've seen in a while. If I hadn't forced myself to blog about it today, I would have forgotten so much of it I wouldn't have been able to write about it at all.
When?- This story takes place 100 years after a family was slaughtered by their possessed son. So, now everyone has to die? Really? That's dumb and makes no sense.
Where?- I don't know. Some mid-western state that starts with an "M". It could have taken place in my living room and I still wouldn't have found it entertaining.
Why?- Good question. I keep asking myself the same thing.
Wrap-up- This has got to be, hands down, arguably one of the most terrible horror movies I have ever seen. At least with other busts they attempt some iota of a story line that works, and you can at least find some humor in the stupidity of the film. This one is just frustrating! The dialogue is awful, the characters are lack luster, the plot is disjointed and the ending is anti-climactic. There is nothing about this film worth watching. End of story.
Pros- My only pro would be that the Latina woman was hot, but the problem was that she facially favored Eva Mendes and let's face it- this girl didn't even come close to that level of gorgeousness. For the first time I can remember, I have zero pros for a film. Cue slow clap.
Cons- Okay, here's the shortened version of the plethora of things wrong with this film. I'll break it down via the interrogative words lesson I learned, circa 3rd grade.
Who?- Val Kilmer. Fat. Enough said. I kid, but really, the former Batman leading man has let himself gooooo. Plus his role in this film is pretty douche-y, and he is only featured in it for a grand total of about 11 minutes. False advertising. Also, Ving Rhames is in a weeeeeeird role that I don't really think anyone could do justice with but thanks for playing, Ving. The rest of the cast is pretty much a collection of no name actors that even IMDB couldn't scrounge up any information on. Tsk tsk.
What?- What the $&#? is more like it. This film is SO poorly done that I don't even know where to begin. Let's start with really bad, unbelievable acting of TERRIBLY constructed characters with zero depth, and lack of believable relationships between characters which, let's face it, can't really happen well if your characters suck to begin with. Throw into the mix poorly done and highly predictable death scenes and pop out moments and you have yourself the most boring, translucent horror film that I've seen in a while. If I hadn't forced myself to blog about it today, I would have forgotten so much of it I wouldn't have been able to write about it at all.
When?- This story takes place 100 years after a family was slaughtered by their possessed son. So, now everyone has to die? Really? That's dumb and makes no sense.
Where?- I don't know. Some mid-western state that starts with an "M". It could have taken place in my living room and I still wouldn't have found it entertaining.
Why?- Good question. I keep asking myself the same thing.
Wrap-up- This has got to be, hands down, arguably one of the most terrible horror movies I have ever seen. At least with other busts they attempt some iota of a story line that works, and you can at least find some humor in the stupidity of the film. This one is just frustrating! The dialogue is awful, the characters are lack luster, the plot is disjointed and the ending is anti-climactic. There is nothing about this film worth watching. End of story.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Film Filter:Off - The Cabin in the Woods
Film Filter: Off- This movie is definitely two things on the surface, pre-viewing: vague, and misleading. This movie is also two things post-viewing: vague and misleading.
Pros- It definitely has the mysterious quality going for it. Nothing in this movie, on the surface, is what it actually is. That being said, they deliver this dual plot in a very up front and humorous way, while still leaving enough information to be discovered to keep the story interesting. Well done.
The cast is fresh enough, with just a dash of familiarity to keep it from being a bust. One of my rules for a successful horror flick? If you consider yourself fairly well versed in actor/actress knowledge, and you haven't heard of ANYONE in the cast, it's probably a bust.
It's pretty refreshing to see a scary movie try to do some things right, despite that it breaks every successful scary movie rule. It's nice to see this one attempt realism by having their cast react the way normal people would when faced with a terrifying situation- run away from the problem. No one really TRIES to run toward danger, and if they do they're hopefully equipped with something to combat it. This movie makes the characters look like they value their lives enough to think intelligibly, which is nice to see.
Think of the funniest person you know...what makes them so funny? Probably some ability to make fun of people, his or herself included. It's healthy to laugh at yourself every once in awhile, mainly for the fact that hopefully you can beat other people to it so it's not so awkward. Anyway, this movie does a good job of healthily making fun of itself and the genre, kudos.
Cons- I would argue there are almost as many things that make this movie freaking weird as there are that make it interesting to watch, so it's sort of a crap shoot depending on how you look at the film.
First off, it was decided that the most frightening part of the whole film was the opening credits where they slap the title of the movie abruptly on the screen. Other than that, it's almost unfair to classify this film as a horror film. While, yes, there are deaths, elements of horror, and grotesque images, there isn't much more than that that makes this movie scary. Throw into the mix the frequent moments of humor, and it deviates from the horror genre even further.
Secondly, I am slightly irked with the progression of the plot. If we break the flow of the story into percentages, the first 70% runs smoothly with information gained yet questions to remain as well. The last 30% of the film, however, takes a nose dive into an abysmal mess of heavily effected villains, an over abundance of grotesque deaths, and weird plot turns. This movie could have gone in many directions, but the one it went in was a weird one for sure.
Also plaguing me after the film is by far one of my biggest pet peeves with any movie: lack of information/back story. Young people need to be sacrificed for the ancient gods to remain dormant. Okay, but it looks like all they REALLY need is a bunch of blood flowing throw ancient hieroglyphics to make them happy sooo....why not just kill animals? I say this because one of the carved hieroglyphics runs with blood when they THINK someone's dead who's really not...so if they can't tell, why do people need to die in the first place? Along this train of thought is the need for five sacrifices of various qualities: athlete, whore, virgin, fool, academic. Apparently, of all the countries performing this ritual, the one featured in the film is the ONLY one that has had any deaths. So...if many countries participate, how many need to be successful in order for the ritual to work? Only one? Then why not sacrifice only 5 people and get it over with! Quality over quantity, people.
Lastly, keeping in mind my enjoyment of the believability of the actors and their personas, is the UN-believabilty of how they react when injured. Someone gets stabbed in the shoulder blade, bear trapped in the back, thrown around by a hulking beast several times, and half eaten by a werewolf and they aren't in any severe pain? Please.
Wrap-up- Unanswered questions and lack of believability aside, this movie actually isn't bad...if you're looking for a laugh. I actually don't mean that as sarcasm, either. If your looking for a funny, entertaining film (up until the end at least) you could watch it. If you're looking for a scary movie, though, you may want to keep looking.
Pros- It definitely has the mysterious quality going for it. Nothing in this movie, on the surface, is what it actually is. That being said, they deliver this dual plot in a very up front and humorous way, while still leaving enough information to be discovered to keep the story interesting. Well done.
The cast is fresh enough, with just a dash of familiarity to keep it from being a bust. One of my rules for a successful horror flick? If you consider yourself fairly well versed in actor/actress knowledge, and you haven't heard of ANYONE in the cast, it's probably a bust.
It's pretty refreshing to see a scary movie try to do some things right, despite that it breaks every successful scary movie rule. It's nice to see this one attempt realism by having their cast react the way normal people would when faced with a terrifying situation- run away from the problem. No one really TRIES to run toward danger, and if they do they're hopefully equipped with something to combat it. This movie makes the characters look like they value their lives enough to think intelligibly, which is nice to see.
Think of the funniest person you know...what makes them so funny? Probably some ability to make fun of people, his or herself included. It's healthy to laugh at yourself every once in awhile, mainly for the fact that hopefully you can beat other people to it so it's not so awkward. Anyway, this movie does a good job of healthily making fun of itself and the genre, kudos.
Cons- I would argue there are almost as many things that make this movie freaking weird as there are that make it interesting to watch, so it's sort of a crap shoot depending on how you look at the film.
First off, it was decided that the most frightening part of the whole film was the opening credits where they slap the title of the movie abruptly on the screen. Other than that, it's almost unfair to classify this film as a horror film. While, yes, there are deaths, elements of horror, and grotesque images, there isn't much more than that that makes this movie scary. Throw into the mix the frequent moments of humor, and it deviates from the horror genre even further.
Secondly, I am slightly irked with the progression of the plot. If we break the flow of the story into percentages, the first 70% runs smoothly with information gained yet questions to remain as well. The last 30% of the film, however, takes a nose dive into an abysmal mess of heavily effected villains, an over abundance of grotesque deaths, and weird plot turns. This movie could have gone in many directions, but the one it went in was a weird one for sure.
Also plaguing me after the film is by far one of my biggest pet peeves with any movie: lack of information/back story. Young people need to be sacrificed for the ancient gods to remain dormant. Okay, but it looks like all they REALLY need is a bunch of blood flowing throw ancient hieroglyphics to make them happy sooo....why not just kill animals? I say this because one of the carved hieroglyphics runs with blood when they THINK someone's dead who's really not...so if they can't tell, why do people need to die in the first place? Along this train of thought is the need for five sacrifices of various qualities: athlete, whore, virgin, fool, academic. Apparently, of all the countries performing this ritual, the one featured in the film is the ONLY one that has had any deaths. So...if many countries participate, how many need to be successful in order for the ritual to work? Only one? Then why not sacrifice only 5 people and get it over with! Quality over quantity, people.
Lastly, keeping in mind my enjoyment of the believability of the actors and their personas, is the UN-believabilty of how they react when injured. Someone gets stabbed in the shoulder blade, bear trapped in the back, thrown around by a hulking beast several times, and half eaten by a werewolf and they aren't in any severe pain? Please.
Wrap-up- Unanswered questions and lack of believability aside, this movie actually isn't bad...if you're looking for a laugh. I actually don't mean that as sarcasm, either. If your looking for a funny, entertaining film (up until the end at least) you could watch it. If you're looking for a scary movie, though, you may want to keep looking.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Film Filter:Off - Season of the Witch
Film Filter: Off- I was prompted to watch this film based off of a lack-luster recommendation from a friend. I generally like to go into a film with a neutral expectation, so I'm often hesitant to blog about movies that are recommended to me, but I figured I'd give this one a shot.
Pros- I think having Ron Perlman in the cast was a step in the right direction. Nicolas Cage is sort of a wild card, depending on the cast, but I think Perlman helped the movie have some diversity to its characterization.
The premise of the film itself is actually pretty good. It's essentially about witchcraft and the ability to decipher whether or not a young woman accused of such is innocent. The first 80% of the film follows this plot point with a fairly interesting and moving pace.
The cinematography of the film was very appropriate to the time period, and quite well done. It featured beautiful, mysterious scenery which looked and felt very realistic.
Cons- I had thought for sure that Nicolas Cage would have been one of the top cons of the film, but as it turns out, he wasn't. In fact, he wasn't a con at all. That being said, he was also not a pro to the film either; he was pretty much neutral.
One of the things that I thought was done poorly, and stood out as such in an obvious manner because of the good cinematography, was the effects. The scene where a plethora of wolves descends upon the caravan looked like a poor man's Twilight transformation scene. There was also a scene that incorporated a heavy use of fire. Again, it resembled more of a cheap N64 game graphic than that of actual fire.
By far and away the biggest con of the film was its inconsistency to remain true to the predetermined plot of the film. It was a decent witchcraft movie for the first 80%, but then turned into a bad demonic-possession-monk-zombie-devil movie with really bad effects for the last 20%. I have no problem with movies taking twists at the end, but this one didn't even feel like it was the same movie. It took this realistic looking, mostly believable film and turned it into an excessively affected fantasy with poorly done special effects and way too much blasé fighting. Oh, and bad dialogue.
Wrap up- This movie is not great on its own merit for the first 80% that was normal. The remaining 20% is the nail in the bad-movie coffin.
Pros- I think having Ron Perlman in the cast was a step in the right direction. Nicolas Cage is sort of a wild card, depending on the cast, but I think Perlman helped the movie have some diversity to its characterization.
The premise of the film itself is actually pretty good. It's essentially about witchcraft and the ability to decipher whether or not a young woman accused of such is innocent. The first 80% of the film follows this plot point with a fairly interesting and moving pace.
The cinematography of the film was very appropriate to the time period, and quite well done. It featured beautiful, mysterious scenery which looked and felt very realistic.
Cons- I had thought for sure that Nicolas Cage would have been one of the top cons of the film, but as it turns out, he wasn't. In fact, he wasn't a con at all. That being said, he was also not a pro to the film either; he was pretty much neutral.
One of the things that I thought was done poorly, and stood out as such in an obvious manner because of the good cinematography, was the effects. The scene where a plethora of wolves descends upon the caravan looked like a poor man's Twilight transformation scene. There was also a scene that incorporated a heavy use of fire. Again, it resembled more of a cheap N64 game graphic than that of actual fire.
By far and away the biggest con of the film was its inconsistency to remain true to the predetermined plot of the film. It was a decent witchcraft movie for the first 80%, but then turned into a bad demonic-possession-monk-zombie-devil movie with really bad effects for the last 20%. I have no problem with movies taking twists at the end, but this one didn't even feel like it was the same movie. It took this realistic looking, mostly believable film and turned it into an excessively affected fantasy with poorly done special effects and way too much blasé fighting. Oh, and bad dialogue.
Wrap up- This movie is not great on its own merit for the first 80% that was normal. The remaining 20% is the nail in the bad-movie coffin.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Film Filter:Off - Scream 4
Film Filter: Off- If you're a fan of the three predecessor movies, you'll most likely probably maybe like this one as well.
Pros- If you're going to continue a scary movie franchise, it is absolutely key to keep the same characters as the original films, or it loses its validity. All of the Scream movies have been pretty true to keeping the survivors the same people, and this one is no exception. Also, Campbell and Arquette look just as good as they did in the original. Cox...not so much.
There would be no point in watching these movies if the identity of the killer was apparent. The whole allure of these movies is the anonymity of the murderer, so that's pretty much what this film has going for it. Kudos to them for a good twist as to who it was.
Cons- One word: predictability. Without the slight twist of who the killer ends up being, this movie is just plain old gimmicky, stifled, and predictable. There is not ONE new idea conceived that was not originally birthed in another one of the three films prior. I guess the excuse for this cop-out method is that the killings are supposed to be modeled after the original, but it almost becomes an issue of, "Why not just watch Scream, then?" It IS a better film, as it was the first.
Can we all also agree that the baloney in the beginning regarding the movie within a movie concept got old, really fast? Some of the cameos were cute, but it was a little over the top.
Alright, we can now talk about acting. Campbell- good, Arquette- good, Panettiere- good, everyone else- shitty. It doesn't help that the script was poorly written and the character development was pretty much nonexistent. It's also quite funny to me that, at the beginning during the movie-within-a-movie segment, the characters are all describing what sucks about most scary movies, and Scream doesn't think to take their own advice. At LEAST when the two girls were tearing apart Saw 4 (no pun intended) they mentioned that the lack of character development was offset by the gore, whereas Scream 4 has no character development AND no gore.
Lastly, when will people ever learn? You're in a town renowned for a serial killer, with a serial killer loose, and yet EVERYONE is f@#%&*$ stupid about EVERYTHING THEY DO! Let's keep the window open, let's keep the doors unlocked, let's slam the door in the killer's face and then dry-hump the door to see if I can hear them, etc. It gets really old, and super duper frustrating.
Wrap up- Overall, I was not impressed in any capacity with this film. The acting, dialogue, and scenarios all left so much to be desired, and it was incredibly frustrating and laughable from pretty much beginning to end.
Pros- If you're going to continue a scary movie franchise, it is absolutely key to keep the same characters as the original films, or it loses its validity. All of the Scream movies have been pretty true to keeping the survivors the same people, and this one is no exception. Also, Campbell and Arquette look just as good as they did in the original. Cox...not so much.
There would be no point in watching these movies if the identity of the killer was apparent. The whole allure of these movies is the anonymity of the murderer, so that's pretty much what this film has going for it. Kudos to them for a good twist as to who it was.
Cons- One word: predictability. Without the slight twist of who the killer ends up being, this movie is just plain old gimmicky, stifled, and predictable. There is not ONE new idea conceived that was not originally birthed in another one of the three films prior. I guess the excuse for this cop-out method is that the killings are supposed to be modeled after the original, but it almost becomes an issue of, "Why not just watch Scream, then?" It IS a better film, as it was the first.
Can we all also agree that the baloney in the beginning regarding the movie within a movie concept got old, really fast? Some of the cameos were cute, but it was a little over the top.
Alright, we can now talk about acting. Campbell- good, Arquette- good, Panettiere- good, everyone else- shitty. It doesn't help that the script was poorly written and the character development was pretty much nonexistent. It's also quite funny to me that, at the beginning during the movie-within-a-movie segment, the characters are all describing what sucks about most scary movies, and Scream doesn't think to take their own advice. At LEAST when the two girls were tearing apart Saw 4 (no pun intended) they mentioned that the lack of character development was offset by the gore, whereas Scream 4 has no character development AND no gore.
Lastly, when will people ever learn? You're in a town renowned for a serial killer, with a serial killer loose, and yet EVERYONE is f@#%&*$ stupid about EVERYTHING THEY DO! Let's keep the window open, let's keep the doors unlocked, let's slam the door in the killer's face and then dry-hump the door to see if I can hear them, etc. It gets really old, and super duper frustrating.
Wrap up- Overall, I was not impressed in any capacity with this film. The acting, dialogue, and scenarios all left so much to be desired, and it was incredibly frustrating and laughable from pretty much beginning to end.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Film Filter:Off - Chronicle
Film Filter- Off: If you check out some of the reviews on this film, it looks to be very promising. It's a little bit of a blend of the trending super hero genre with the found-footage style of documentation, so it's definitely unique. Depending on your taste in thriller/action movies, though, it could prove to be a real bust.
Pros- One of the things that I don't think many people will appreciate about the film is the emotional turmoil that the main character endures. Although it's common to see pre-super heroes struggle with confidence or acceptance, this delves much deeper into a very dark and troubling circumstance in Andrew's life, which I found to be quite intriguing.
The often comedic and realistic high school interactions between the characters was also a pleasant surprise, which is why I found the dual genre idea to be somewhat effective. It was sort of a melting pot of ideas put into a shakily shot film, which makes it a little bit more realistic feeling. It was also enjoyable to watch the evolution of their super powers, be it a successful first attempt or an epic failure. Again, it felt a lot more realistic than being able to master your powers instantaneously.
Cons- Unfortunately, I found this movie to have more cons than it did pros. A lot of that had to do with the fact that it attempted to feel so realistic, and succeeded a lot of the time, and then took a very drastic turn into unrealistic. I mean, you've got to know as a director that a fictitious super hero film can only feel realistic to a certain extent. The problem with this one is that it was such an abrupt shift that it was almost laughable how quickly the situation lost control.
One of the reviews I read alluded to the fact that this is not a family friendly super hero film, as it has many dark twists and themes in it. I would agree, but I would almost go a step further to argue that most of the underlying themes are not of a super hero film at all. It seemed that the focus of the film was on Andrew's struggles to be accepted by his classmates and family, and his inability to make friends. Once he receives his powers, however, this troubled teen is given the most powerful tool that a depressed, bullied teen could be given: a means to revenge. Is it still a superhero film? Yeah, sort of, but to deny that it's heavily themed toward bullying and teenage angst would be inaccurate.
As a film that is attempting to be viewed from a first person perspective, it also creates the tendency for the film to drag, as this one did in several different occasions. On the flip side, when something profound DID happen, it was almost like we got slapped in the face with it. The intensity of the plot seemed to move more like pitch frequencies, rather than following a standard evolution of a slow, but steady lead in to a climax with a resolution not long after.
Lastly, it's hard to achieve the level of realism this film attempted while also adding the special effects needed to make the story make sense. A lot of the effects looked pretty cheap and fake and took me out of the film...the few times I was actually into it.
Wrap up- It's really hard for me to put my finger on why I thought this movie sucked. What I think it really boils down to is the lack of harmony between trying to be realistic and attempting a fictional story about super hero teens. The most beloved part about super hero films is their ability to take you out of reality, so to try to contradict that, with the addition of making the main character deranged and revenge seeking, made the film a little schizophrenic.
Pros- One of the things that I don't think many people will appreciate about the film is the emotional turmoil that the main character endures. Although it's common to see pre-super heroes struggle with confidence or acceptance, this delves much deeper into a very dark and troubling circumstance in Andrew's life, which I found to be quite intriguing.
The often comedic and realistic high school interactions between the characters was also a pleasant surprise, which is why I found the dual genre idea to be somewhat effective. It was sort of a melting pot of ideas put into a shakily shot film, which makes it a little bit more realistic feeling. It was also enjoyable to watch the evolution of their super powers, be it a successful first attempt or an epic failure. Again, it felt a lot more realistic than being able to master your powers instantaneously.
Cons- Unfortunately, I found this movie to have more cons than it did pros. A lot of that had to do with the fact that it attempted to feel so realistic, and succeeded a lot of the time, and then took a very drastic turn into unrealistic. I mean, you've got to know as a director that a fictitious super hero film can only feel realistic to a certain extent. The problem with this one is that it was such an abrupt shift that it was almost laughable how quickly the situation lost control.
One of the reviews I read alluded to the fact that this is not a family friendly super hero film, as it has many dark twists and themes in it. I would agree, but I would almost go a step further to argue that most of the underlying themes are not of a super hero film at all. It seemed that the focus of the film was on Andrew's struggles to be accepted by his classmates and family, and his inability to make friends. Once he receives his powers, however, this troubled teen is given the most powerful tool that a depressed, bullied teen could be given: a means to revenge. Is it still a superhero film? Yeah, sort of, but to deny that it's heavily themed toward bullying and teenage angst would be inaccurate.
As a film that is attempting to be viewed from a first person perspective, it also creates the tendency for the film to drag, as this one did in several different occasions. On the flip side, when something profound DID happen, it was almost like we got slapped in the face with it. The intensity of the plot seemed to move more like pitch frequencies, rather than following a standard evolution of a slow, but steady lead in to a climax with a resolution not long after.
Lastly, it's hard to achieve the level of realism this film attempted while also adding the special effects needed to make the story make sense. A lot of the effects looked pretty cheap and fake and took me out of the film...the few times I was actually into it.
Wrap up- It's really hard for me to put my finger on why I thought this movie sucked. What I think it really boils down to is the lack of harmony between trying to be realistic and attempting a fictional story about super hero teens. The most beloved part about super hero films is their ability to take you out of reality, so to try to contradict that, with the addition of making the main character deranged and revenge seeking, made the film a little schizophrenic.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Film Filter: Off- The Woman in Black
Film Filter: Off- So I had literally heard about this movie the mere day before I had seen it. It had come highly recommended, so I figured why not watch it. I was a little apprehensive to see Radcliffe in his first real breakaway role from Harry Potter, but the movie certainly did not disappoint.
Pros- To properly portray this type of film, you need a very strong lead actor, which I'm happy to say they received with Radcliffe. This is the type of introspective first person thriller not unlike I am Legend or Castaway, where the lead character spends most of their time alone and must captivate our interest through a majority of silence. Again, Radcliffe delivers.
I am also very enamored with the time period in the film, the late 1800s early 1900s. I think most horror films try to make themselves look realistic, so the obvious ploy would be to set the story in a modern day time period to make it feel more "real". After watching this film, however, I would argue the opposite to be true. Without the modern technological marvels of cell phones, laptops, vehicles, and electricity, characters in a scene are more vulnerable and don't have an easy way out of the situation. It's a much more frightening thought to be without the ability to communicate with anyone and to feel totally alone and helpless. Although modern age scary movies try to attempt this concept with power outages, no reception, flat tires, and dead batteries, I find it a little less extreme of a situation when they have the resources for instant communication and they become rendered useless, than when those resources are not available at all because they do not exist yet.
Something I found I had a love/hate relationship with about this film was its lack of "dead giveaway" music. Being a musician, I always tend to listen for the background music in a critical part of the plot so I can hear the climactic part and expect what's going to pop out and scare me. It's sort of an unwritten rule that this happens in horror movies, and even when the music cuts out to try to fool you and they scare you anyway, there's some type of predictability. This film does NOT utilize background music, pretty much ever. Therefore each moment feels more like real time and the audience finds themselves literally on the edge of their seat in suspense, as anything could happen at any moment. Pretty effective, I'd say, as I jumped out of my seat no less than three times.
Oh, how ever so slowly we received all the pieces to this mysterious puzzle, which is an extremely effective way of putting a story together. It was pretty much perfect timing because as soon as things felt like they might begin to drag, we got a new piece of information to work with, and we continued to receive more and more pieces to that puzzle up until the very end. Excellent work, yet again.
Cons- I don't have many for this film, but one that I heard from many people was that "it was too much screaming in your face". Okay, this is a valid point, but can we rationalize why we go to scary movies in a theater? It's to see if how frightened we can become. From an analytical standpoint did the creepy images, screaming faces, and pop-up moments become redundant? Yes. But did they also scare the pants off of most people in the theater? Yes. It's all about give and take, people.
One of my most common complaints regarding this genre of film is the stupidity of the main character in their attempts to investigate clearly unsafe circumstances. This film is no exception, however we see that Radcliffe's character is a saddened, yet compassionate man who is constantly out to make the world a better place. I think we're to assume he's trying to see if someone is hurt, or in trouble, but come on Dan- you're in a haunted house with the CREEPIEST of CREEPY dolls in the upstairs room. Use your head. You can also argue that, should he have known there were terrible things happening in the loud rooms he investigates, he really can't leave the house, so he might as well go up there and face it rather than become surprised later.
Wrap up- If there's a movie that I've reviewed that I could recommend the MOST it would by far be this one. I think it delivers an almost flawless recipe for horror, and leaves you constantly on the edge of your seat, wanting to know more about what's going on until the very end. Very well done, Potter.
Pros- To properly portray this type of film, you need a very strong lead actor, which I'm happy to say they received with Radcliffe. This is the type of introspective first person thriller not unlike I am Legend or Castaway, where the lead character spends most of their time alone and must captivate our interest through a majority of silence. Again, Radcliffe delivers.
I am also very enamored with the time period in the film, the late 1800s early 1900s. I think most horror films try to make themselves look realistic, so the obvious ploy would be to set the story in a modern day time period to make it feel more "real". After watching this film, however, I would argue the opposite to be true. Without the modern technological marvels of cell phones, laptops, vehicles, and electricity, characters in a scene are more vulnerable and don't have an easy way out of the situation. It's a much more frightening thought to be without the ability to communicate with anyone and to feel totally alone and helpless. Although modern age scary movies try to attempt this concept with power outages, no reception, flat tires, and dead batteries, I find it a little less extreme of a situation when they have the resources for instant communication and they become rendered useless, than when those resources are not available at all because they do not exist yet.
Something I found I had a love/hate relationship with about this film was its lack of "dead giveaway" music. Being a musician, I always tend to listen for the background music in a critical part of the plot so I can hear the climactic part and expect what's going to pop out and scare me. It's sort of an unwritten rule that this happens in horror movies, and even when the music cuts out to try to fool you and they scare you anyway, there's some type of predictability. This film does NOT utilize background music, pretty much ever. Therefore each moment feels more like real time and the audience finds themselves literally on the edge of their seat in suspense, as anything could happen at any moment. Pretty effective, I'd say, as I jumped out of my seat no less than three times.
Oh, how ever so slowly we received all the pieces to this mysterious puzzle, which is an extremely effective way of putting a story together. It was pretty much perfect timing because as soon as things felt like they might begin to drag, we got a new piece of information to work with, and we continued to receive more and more pieces to that puzzle up until the very end. Excellent work, yet again.
Cons- I don't have many for this film, but one that I heard from many people was that "it was too much screaming in your face". Okay, this is a valid point, but can we rationalize why we go to scary movies in a theater? It's to see if how frightened we can become. From an analytical standpoint did the creepy images, screaming faces, and pop-up moments become redundant? Yes. But did they also scare the pants off of most people in the theater? Yes. It's all about give and take, people.
One of my most common complaints regarding this genre of film is the stupidity of the main character in their attempts to investigate clearly unsafe circumstances. This film is no exception, however we see that Radcliffe's character is a saddened, yet compassionate man who is constantly out to make the world a better place. I think we're to assume he's trying to see if someone is hurt, or in trouble, but come on Dan- you're in a haunted house with the CREEPIEST of CREEPY dolls in the upstairs room. Use your head. You can also argue that, should he have known there were terrible things happening in the loud rooms he investigates, he really can't leave the house, so he might as well go up there and face it rather than become surprised later.
Wrap up- If there's a movie that I've reviewed that I could recommend the MOST it would by far be this one. I think it delivers an almost flawless recipe for horror, and leaves you constantly on the edge of your seat, wanting to know more about what's going on until the very end. Very well done, Potter.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Film Filter: Off- 11-11-11
Film Filter: Off- Ummmm, wow. Apocalypse movies have a funny way of looking profound and intriguing when they're really not, eh?
Pros- I'm reaaaaaallllly reaching here. Let's see...it was nice that the mother threw out the molasses cookies for the reasoning that she didn't want her son to consume an unnecessary amount of sugar early in the morning. That's about all of the positivity this movie mustered. I guess I can give props for symbolism, albeit really forced, obvious symbolism.
Cons- I don't even know where to begin. How about how stupid the father is? He doesn't keep a very vigilant eye on his kid, first of all. He also doesn't seem to notice that there are piles of bodies stacking up in his backyard either. His deranged babysitter keeps giving his son Nathan a stupid book on the symbolic meaning of the number 11, and instead of destroying it, he keeps throwing it out...in the same garbage can. Oh, and he doesn't fire her OR inquire as to why she might be reading him a morbid, sadistic book either. Lastly, he witnesses his son stab his wife, so he rescues his son from his crazy neighbor and then leaves his son alone with his wife in the house? I bet that's not going to end well.
Next, can we just take a brief moment and talk about BAD ACTING. Especially on the kid's behalf. Call up Dakota Fanning for a play-date; she can give you some pointers as to how to not suck as a child actor.
In terms of plot, this movie is about as well put together and interesting as a geriatric chess match. There is not really any in depth background information as to why this is going on and who the eff the people are that are so concerned about him. An interesting, although stupid, twist is that MOST of the people surrounding themselves with Nathan's well-being are crazy devil worshippers, and not holy people trying to inhibit the transformation process. Wouldn't you think, as with most apocalyptic movies, there would be some Vatican members, priests, or spiritual warriors trying to prevent this from happening? Nope, the directors instead sought out the crazy old cat lady next door as their only ambassador. Excellent choice.
Lastly, this movie is not only the antithesis of good, but also of scary. Not just because it's dumb, either. There is not one genuinely horrific, frightening, grotesque, or shocking aspect of this film. Other than the fact that it was made.
Wrap up- Please don't watch this...unless you have a fetish for constantly checking your Netflix movie progress to see how much of your life you have left to waste on this film.
Pros- I'm reaaaaaallllly reaching here. Let's see...it was nice that the mother threw out the molasses cookies for the reasoning that she didn't want her son to consume an unnecessary amount of sugar early in the morning. That's about all of the positivity this movie mustered. I guess I can give props for symbolism, albeit really forced, obvious symbolism.
Cons- I don't even know where to begin. How about how stupid the father is? He doesn't keep a very vigilant eye on his kid, first of all. He also doesn't seem to notice that there are piles of bodies stacking up in his backyard either. His deranged babysitter keeps giving his son Nathan a stupid book on the symbolic meaning of the number 11, and instead of destroying it, he keeps throwing it out...in the same garbage can. Oh, and he doesn't fire her OR inquire as to why she might be reading him a morbid, sadistic book either. Lastly, he witnesses his son stab his wife, so he rescues his son from his crazy neighbor and then leaves his son alone with his wife in the house? I bet that's not going to end well.
Next, can we just take a brief moment and talk about BAD ACTING. Especially on the kid's behalf. Call up Dakota Fanning for a play-date; she can give you some pointers as to how to not suck as a child actor.
In terms of plot, this movie is about as well put together and interesting as a geriatric chess match. There is not really any in depth background information as to why this is going on and who the eff the people are that are so concerned about him. An interesting, although stupid, twist is that MOST of the people surrounding themselves with Nathan's well-being are crazy devil worshippers, and not holy people trying to inhibit the transformation process. Wouldn't you think, as with most apocalyptic movies, there would be some Vatican members, priests, or spiritual warriors trying to prevent this from happening? Nope, the directors instead sought out the crazy old cat lady next door as their only ambassador. Excellent choice.
Lastly, this movie is not only the antithesis of good, but also of scary. Not just because it's dumb, either. There is not one genuinely horrific, frightening, grotesque, or shocking aspect of this film. Other than the fact that it was made.
Wrap up- Please don't watch this...unless you have a fetish for constantly checking your Netflix movie progress to see how much of your life you have left to waste on this film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)