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.
Monday, March 26, 2012
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.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Film Filter: Off- Tucker and Dale vs. Evil
Film Filter: Off- After checking out a top 10 list of highly rated horror films, I ran across this one at the top. Not having seen it, and never having heard of it, I figured I should check it out. Needless to say, I'm glad I did.
Pros- One of the most attractive parts of this film is how unique it is. It doesn't take itself too seriously, and is more of a comedic horror film than one intended to induce fear. In addition to the different spin on the genre, is the perspective that the film takes. Instead of looking through the eyes of the victims, the viewer is seeing the film from the point of view of the suspected antagonists.
Another one of the things that was appealing about this film was the mockery it made of the stereotypical, preppy, college victims that are prevalent in so many horror flicks. It showcased quite a few of the cliche personalities: the dumb bitch, the compassionate girl, the sensible one who just wants to get the f#%@ out of there, and the gung-ho, testosterone filled hero who wants a showdown with the killer, just to name a few.
Lastly, the most memorable positive attribute of the movie is the chronic "wrong place wrong time" scenarios that ensue, causing Tucker and Dale to appear to be menacing serial killers. Even in the beginning of the film they are portrayed to be reclusive, mysterious hillbillies who look dangerous. It isn't until after about a good 20 minutes or so that the audience realizes they are kind-hearted, lovable guys who wouldn't (and couldn't) hurt a fly. It's sort of like the musical Wicked, in that the stereotypical villain gets to share their side of the story. Quite a clever concept, and very funny at that.
Cons- Well, one con is if you're looking for a horror movie. Although this film has elements often found in scary films, it certainly shouldn't be classified as one.
Although this film, as previously stated, is definitely not meant to be taken seriously, I can't be a movie analyst without pointing out some things that are frustrating. For example, when Tucker and Dale are taking care of Allison, the level of communication gets very skewed between them and the college kids. Granted, Tucker and Dale are certainly not rocket scientists, but they'd probably at least have sense enough to know that it looks like they abducted her, instead of trying to help her.
Wrap up- All in all, this movie is very entertaining, especially if you're into comedy. The movie in itself is also pretty well done (with the exception of some poor acting that I deem is most likely deliberate) and also has a sort of sweet moral to it. The feel of it is generally a mix of the aspect of everything going wrong in Meet the Parents with the humorous, gory nature of Shaun of the Dead. Definitely a good movie to watch with friends.
Pros- One of the most attractive parts of this film is how unique it is. It doesn't take itself too seriously, and is more of a comedic horror film than one intended to induce fear. In addition to the different spin on the genre, is the perspective that the film takes. Instead of looking through the eyes of the victims, the viewer is seeing the film from the point of view of the suspected antagonists.
Another one of the things that was appealing about this film was the mockery it made of the stereotypical, preppy, college victims that are prevalent in so many horror flicks. It showcased quite a few of the cliche personalities: the dumb bitch, the compassionate girl, the sensible one who just wants to get the f#%@ out of there, and the gung-ho, testosterone filled hero who wants a showdown with the killer, just to name a few.
Lastly, the most memorable positive attribute of the movie is the chronic "wrong place wrong time" scenarios that ensue, causing Tucker and Dale to appear to be menacing serial killers. Even in the beginning of the film they are portrayed to be reclusive, mysterious hillbillies who look dangerous. It isn't until after about a good 20 minutes or so that the audience realizes they are kind-hearted, lovable guys who wouldn't (and couldn't) hurt a fly. It's sort of like the musical Wicked, in that the stereotypical villain gets to share their side of the story. Quite a clever concept, and very funny at that.
Cons- Well, one con is if you're looking for a horror movie. Although this film has elements often found in scary films, it certainly shouldn't be classified as one.
Although this film, as previously stated, is definitely not meant to be taken seriously, I can't be a movie analyst without pointing out some things that are frustrating. For example, when Tucker and Dale are taking care of Allison, the level of communication gets very skewed between them and the college kids. Granted, Tucker and Dale are certainly not rocket scientists, but they'd probably at least have sense enough to know that it looks like they abducted her, instead of trying to help her.
Wrap up- All in all, this movie is very entertaining, especially if you're into comedy. The movie in itself is also pretty well done (with the exception of some poor acting that I deem is most likely deliberate) and also has a sort of sweet moral to it. The feel of it is generally a mix of the aspect of everything going wrong in Meet the Parents with the humorous, gory nature of Shaun of the Dead. Definitely a good movie to watch with friends.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Film Filter:Off - Fright Night
Film Filter: Off- So I had mixed feelings about this movie before I watched it, as I had been waiting for months to see it. Hoping that I didn't build it up for myself too much, I finally got the opportunity when my ridiculously cool brother bought it for me for Christmas.
Pros- Well, Colin Farrell, for one. I had always thought he was good looking, but there's something about his role in this film that made him sexy as all hell, no pun intended. He did a really great job playing the lustful, charming, invincible antagonist that women just can't say "no" to. It wasn't just his good looks that accomplished that, though. His mannerisms, the dramatic pauses he took in his dialogue, and his facial expressions all embodied the role perfectly; it got to the point where I found myself believing no one else could have played the role better, and that's a good feeling to have when you're reviewing a film.
I also liked that the film didn't have an overtly serious tone about it. It mixed in a good amount of humor, which helped diversify the film a bit and lighten it up considerably. It also made a nice recipe to invite Christopher Mintz-Plasse (McLovin') into the cast for some hilarious comic relief as well.
I thought most of the acting was well done although, with the exception of Farrell's character, most of the other character personalities were pretty watered down and straightforward.
Cons- First off, it was a bit confusing to the average, run of the mill viewer why the vampire features changed so much. Sometimes he would maintain his human features, whereas other times his face would drastically change. I don't claim to know enough about vampiric history to automatically know why that would happen, and I'm willing to assume most viewers would also fall into this category. Feeding versus attacking was one theory I heard, but either way, the movie didn't really go into any detail about it, which was sometimes frustrating.
Also frustrating was Charlie's relationship with his so-called best friend, Ed. Apparently Charlie is sort of popular now that he's dating Amy, so his relationship with his old friend seems a little turbulent. I understand teen drama, and that they could potentially be having a falling out, but when Ed points out that their other friend, Adam, has gone missing, Charlie seems to not really give a shit. Even though Ed was spouting off seemingly nonsensical evidence about vampires, Charlie should have still acknowledged the fact that his friend was MIA, regardless of the circumstances.
Wrap up: This movie is very entertaining and quite funny. Definitely worth seeing.
Pros- Well, Colin Farrell, for one. I had always thought he was good looking, but there's something about his role in this film that made him sexy as all hell, no pun intended. He did a really great job playing the lustful, charming, invincible antagonist that women just can't say "no" to. It wasn't just his good looks that accomplished that, though. His mannerisms, the dramatic pauses he took in his dialogue, and his facial expressions all embodied the role perfectly; it got to the point where I found myself believing no one else could have played the role better, and that's a good feeling to have when you're reviewing a film.
I also liked that the film didn't have an overtly serious tone about it. It mixed in a good amount of humor, which helped diversify the film a bit and lighten it up considerably. It also made a nice recipe to invite Christopher Mintz-Plasse (McLovin') into the cast for some hilarious comic relief as well.
I thought most of the acting was well done although, with the exception of Farrell's character, most of the other character personalities were pretty watered down and straightforward.
Cons- First off, it was a bit confusing to the average, run of the mill viewer why the vampire features changed so much. Sometimes he would maintain his human features, whereas other times his face would drastically change. I don't claim to know enough about vampiric history to automatically know why that would happen, and I'm willing to assume most viewers would also fall into this category. Feeding versus attacking was one theory I heard, but either way, the movie didn't really go into any detail about it, which was sometimes frustrating.
Also frustrating was Charlie's relationship with his so-called best friend, Ed. Apparently Charlie is sort of popular now that he's dating Amy, so his relationship with his old friend seems a little turbulent. I understand teen drama, and that they could potentially be having a falling out, but when Ed points out that their other friend, Adam, has gone missing, Charlie seems to not really give a shit. Even though Ed was spouting off seemingly nonsensical evidence about vampires, Charlie should have still acknowledged the fact that his friend was MIA, regardless of the circumstances.
Wrap up: This movie is very entertaining and quite funny. Definitely worth seeing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)