Film Filter: Off- Hands down this was one of my most anticipated views of 2013/2014. After having seen the original a few years back, I was definitely intrigued. As soon as news of the sequel came out I investigated, and was pumped to finally be able to see it.
Pros- The movie did a fantastic job of picking up right where its predecessor left off. It also went back quite a bit and touched upon things that happened in the original, so those that hadn't seen it (or hadn't seen it in awhile) weren't totally left in the dark.
In addition to the constant revisitation of Insidious, this one also took some of the original's story and expanded upon it, and the characters, to roll the storyline into one nice, neat little package. You know by now, I hope, how much I hate loose ends, so you can probably sense my appreciation.
One thing I liked about watching this second film (of at least a trilogy, based upon the ending) is that it took what the first movie did well and worked with that, while also attempting to learn from the things that didn't work. If you recall in my posting of Insidious (my first EVER blog on this site, for the record) two of my pet peeves were the crazy spirit-makeup, and the over-exposure of the demon that was stalking the family. Both of these minor annoyances got fixed in the sequel, so thanks producers and directors! Maybe they read my blog X-)
There was also a god use of pop out moments every now and then, which were deemed pretty effective.
Cons- Unfortunately, all of the good things mentioned above are kind of where it all ends. My first beef: why is Renai so "okay" with the fact that her husband isn't her husband? I mean, she knows, right? Yet she goes through the first third of the movie totally oblivious and doesn't seem to realize her husband is possessed until it is brought to her attention. Did she not see the end of the first movie? 'Cuz I did, and it pretty clearly showed her taking a photo of Josh to reveal none other than the creepy old woman on the camera screen. And she disregards this information? Or we're led to believe she wasn't convinced enough? I'm not buying it.
A lot of the acting, dialogue, and character interactions in this film feel very labored. I know what you're thinking: "This movie isn't supposed to be good at those things, it's a horror flick." You may have a point, but I like to call a spade a spade, and if they didn't want to have solid dialogue and characterizations, they shouldn't have included so much of them. Some of it is really painful to watch.
Despite the fact that the group of people I was watching the movie with and I came up with a plausible rationale, it didn't quite make sense to me that destroying Parker's mother would successfully rid Josh of Parker's spiritual influence. I mean, she was definitely controlling him, but he was his own tangible person, and thus, his own spirit. That spiritual connection, or spiritual separation to be more specific, didn't quite add up to me. Plus...last time I checked, she was already dead. How did Elise kill her, again?
There were also several unbelievable circumstances, such as Josh's body being weakened by the spirit (makes sense) but then also being able to take a wrench to the head about five or six times without getting knocked out (not so much). Or bloodied. Or bruised even. What? He's still flesh and blood, so how was he able to escape from that ordeal unscathed? Beats me. Haha. Get it?
Lastly, the ending. Why? It's a new house, a new family, and new spirits, probably. Although the actual scene wasn't badly done, the content and context made little to no difference to us as audience members. We have no vested interest in any of these characters, not to mention we don't even know who they are. I get that they are opening it up for a third movie, but at least try to tie it in to something the audience can relate to.
Wrap up- The first time I saw the initial movie, I loved it. The second time, I didn't enjoy it quite as much and found more fault with it. I don't feel that this sequel even comes close to being as good as the original, but I commend them for making it. Could it have been done better? Absolutely, but if you're looking for a scary movie that elaborates on a pretty unique idea, this isn't the worst pick.
Saturday, February 22, 2014
Saturday, February 1, 2014
Film Filter: Off - The Prophecy
Film Filter: Off- After I watched The Ninth Gate, The Prophecy was suggested to me. Y'all know I can't turn down a theological thriller, so I obliged.
Pros- I think this movie actually had a lot going for it. The cast was pretty solid, the acting wasn't too bad, and it had a unique plot. Well, maybe an overused plot that had some minor changes, but those changes were enough to set it apart from similar films.
Christopher Walken was particularly interesting in this film, despite the fact that he overuses the term "talking monkeys" quite a bit. I'm sure a drinking game can be found somewhere in there... I also enjoyed Viggo Mortensen as Satan/Lucifer. Although not on film for a huge portion of the movie, his part was critical and I thought he did it justice. I'm also a big Elias Koteas fan, so I was glad he was the protagonist.
I thought it interesting and effective that there is a very early-on twist regarding the Angel Simon and his character's disposition. It's interesting to me when all signs point toward a character being one way, when they actually aren't. He also wasn't in a major enough role to see it coming, which made it even more effective.
Cons- I'm going to start with my biggest beef with this film, and then lighten up as I go. I don't understand why there is a need to portray the Angel Gabriel as someone out to rebel against God. Prove me wrong if you can, but in my research there is no proof to corroborate this story, and it is very irritating to me for a big reason: it is taking a well-known character and changing its pre-determined story. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fiction, and I'm also not opposed to changing and challenging what has already been determined, but in this case it just doesn't work for me. Case in point: Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. Lincoln (probably) didn't hunt vampires, but for the sake of the fictional story, we can buy into it. Why? Lincoln still dies at the end (sort of), thus the plausibility remains intact. It's a fictional story, about a historical figure, with a loose amount of believability. Now, let's say this movie took Abraham Lincoln and instead turned him into a double agent who was actually working against the United States government in attempts to have England regain control of the New World, and let's throw in that he lives at the end. I would have a problem with that, as it is a fictional scenario based on a real historical figure that didn't do any of that. Whether or not you believe in angels or the bible is kind of irrelevant; the story of Gabriel has already been told and this movie not only fictionalizes it (which is one thing) but completely changes the disposition, action and motivation of the entity that is being referenced. No bueno.
On to the lighter things. Is this teacher certified? In ANYTHING? She leaves the kids unattended not once, or twice, but THREE TIMES...and that's just in the 98 minutes we get to see her irresponsible monitoring skills. Not to mention that two out of the three times the students are unsupervised, the kids end up not just in proximity, but on the LAP of a TOTAL STRANGER. Seem weird to anyone else? Maybe it's just me.
So, Gabriel is an angel. Got it. He can spontaneously combust people, pull them from death's doorstep, and hurl people across the room, but he can't drive? Or teleport? Or fly, maybe? This is just ridiculous.
I kind of have a problem grasping the fact that the person that saves the day in this story is...Satan? Huhshdflnwhaaat? I can wrap my mind around the rationale as to why he might intervene, sure, but there is just something about this picture that won't ever sit right with me.
Wrap up- Overall, I think I need to take a break from 90s theological based horror flicks. The premises and casts are promising, but the effects, delivery, and overall stories are disappointing.
Pros- I think this movie actually had a lot going for it. The cast was pretty solid, the acting wasn't too bad, and it had a unique plot. Well, maybe an overused plot that had some minor changes, but those changes were enough to set it apart from similar films.
Christopher Walken was particularly interesting in this film, despite the fact that he overuses the term "talking monkeys" quite a bit. I'm sure a drinking game can be found somewhere in there... I also enjoyed Viggo Mortensen as Satan/Lucifer. Although not on film for a huge portion of the movie, his part was critical and I thought he did it justice. I'm also a big Elias Koteas fan, so I was glad he was the protagonist.
I thought it interesting and effective that there is a very early-on twist regarding the Angel Simon and his character's disposition. It's interesting to me when all signs point toward a character being one way, when they actually aren't. He also wasn't in a major enough role to see it coming, which made it even more effective.
Cons- I'm going to start with my biggest beef with this film, and then lighten up as I go. I don't understand why there is a need to portray the Angel Gabriel as someone out to rebel against God. Prove me wrong if you can, but in my research there is no proof to corroborate this story, and it is very irritating to me for a big reason: it is taking a well-known character and changing its pre-determined story. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fiction, and I'm also not opposed to changing and challenging what has already been determined, but in this case it just doesn't work for me. Case in point: Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. Lincoln (probably) didn't hunt vampires, but for the sake of the fictional story, we can buy into it. Why? Lincoln still dies at the end (sort of), thus the plausibility remains intact. It's a fictional story, about a historical figure, with a loose amount of believability. Now, let's say this movie took Abraham Lincoln and instead turned him into a double agent who was actually working against the United States government in attempts to have England regain control of the New World, and let's throw in that he lives at the end. I would have a problem with that, as it is a fictional scenario based on a real historical figure that didn't do any of that. Whether or not you believe in angels or the bible is kind of irrelevant; the story of Gabriel has already been told and this movie not only fictionalizes it (which is one thing) but completely changes the disposition, action and motivation of the entity that is being referenced. No bueno.
On to the lighter things. Is this teacher certified? In ANYTHING? She leaves the kids unattended not once, or twice, but THREE TIMES...and that's just in the 98 minutes we get to see her irresponsible monitoring skills. Not to mention that two out of the three times the students are unsupervised, the kids end up not just in proximity, but on the LAP of a TOTAL STRANGER. Seem weird to anyone else? Maybe it's just me.
So, Gabriel is an angel. Got it. He can spontaneously combust people, pull them from death's doorstep, and hurl people across the room, but he can't drive? Or teleport? Or fly, maybe? This is just ridiculous.
I kind of have a problem grasping the fact that the person that saves the day in this story is...Satan? Huhshdflnwhaaat? I can wrap my mind around the rationale as to why he might intervene, sure, but there is just something about this picture that won't ever sit right with me.
Wrap up- Overall, I think I need to take a break from 90s theological based horror flicks. The premises and casts are promising, but the effects, delivery, and overall stories are disappointing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)