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.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)