Film Filter: Off- Many times that I have visited IMDB to look up info or get a photo for a movie to put on my blog, the movie Zodiac came up underneath as "People who liked this also liked..." I had thought about watching it for awhile, so when I saw that it was on Netflix I immediately pushed play.
Pros- For being as long as it was, it really didn't seem that long. Maybe it's because I saw it over the span of two days, but I think I would have felt the same way had I watched it all in one fell swoop. For some reason, it grabbed my attention from beginning to end, likely because it felt like one big Law & Order SVU episode.
As I have stated many times, movies that are based on true events are more intriguing to me than those that aren't. That doesn't mean that they're better, per se, as evidenced with the Alphabet Killer. Similar to The Conjuring, though, I enjoyed looking up some of the research after I finished watching the movie. Although this follows Robert Graysmith as he writes a novel about the Zodiac, it was interesting to read that there have been many books published on the subject, and MANY people have been suspected of the killings, not just one.
One of the things I found interesting is the shift of focus on the three main protagonists in the film. All three actors, Downey, Ruffalo, and Gyllenhaal, did a commendable job with their respective roles. I love Robert Downey Jr., and I thought he not only portrayed the character well, but also the evolution of an employed journalist to a drug and alcohol abusing sloth. He played them both well, and the change in his character due to the obsession of the case was evident. Gyllenhaal was cast perfectly, and Ruffalo did a good job as well. Getting back to the shift of focus, usually three pretty big named actors "starring" in a film have to share the screen time, so one is more secondary than the other. Due to the film being so long, and to the story taking place over decades, each one got a pretty decent amount of screen time. Downey controlled the beginning part of the film, with Gyllenhaal's help, and Ruffalo commanded most of the middle, while Gyllenhaal took over from there to the ending. It was interesting to see three different perspectives and approaches to the crime.
Lastly, one of the minor things that I really enjoyed was the steps taken to make the movie feel realistic. From the scenery, to the automobiles and wardrobe, to the documents with typos from the typewriter, every attempt was made to make this film feel like it took place in the late 1960's and 1970's.
Cons- First and foremost, this movie should not really be classified as a horror flick. Although there are elements that are present in the movie that appear to be of this genre, it's really more of a murder-mystery/thriller. For those that are looking for a scary movie, don't push play. If you're looking for something thought provoking, it might be more up your alley.
One of the things I found annoying was the lack of addressing Gyllenhaal's wife or their marital problems. Now, yes, I know that this was not designed to be the focus of the film, but it was clear that there were issues going on. As a side note, I loved the part where she had an envelope for him, and it wasn't the expected divorce papers. It just felt disjointed to me that Gyllenhaal's character puts their family safety "first" but is so obsessed that it's really all just talk. That seems to be how the real story goes though, so there's not really a lot I can contend with.
The murder scenes were all really awkward. The dialogue always felt forced, and it was shocking to me that NO ONE knew better than to: stare at someone clearly stalking you, pull over while someone behind you is flashing their lights/honking, etc.
P.S.- Speaking of the woman that nearly got killed in the car with him...why did NO ONE think to interview her? She sat right next to him and had a conversation with him. Unless I missed something that dismissed that scenario as not being the Zodiac killer, I feel like that's a pretty clear path to try to take in solving the investigation.
Wrap up- This movie is a complicated one to review, for sure. It wasn't a bad movie, but it also wasn't scary.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Film Filter: Off - House at the End of the Street
Film Filter: Off- I hadn't heard much, or anything really, about this film. After watching The Hunger Games and Silver Linings Playbook, and then making the connection that Jennifer Lawrence had done a scary movie, it was done. I had to see it- good, bad, or indifferent.
Pros- I really like Jennifer Lawrence, and this movie certainly didn't make me feel otherwise. I felt, unlike a lot of scary movies, she portrayed how a teen would talk and act: with lots of eye rolls and personality. The relationship her character, Elissa, had with her mother also felt realistic, including lots of teen angst and resentment, along with some amicable, low-key scenes thrown in. The leading male, Max Thieriot, was impossible not to fall in love with. He was so stinking cute, but also pathetic in many ways. It was easy to see why Elissa had a hard time keeping her hands off.
In terms of the plot, I thought it was almost flawlessly executed. The ability of the movie to portray Tyler and Carrie Anne as the antagonists, with Elissa and Ryan as the protagonists worked beautifully. I really don't want to give away too much of the ending on this one, so I'll keep my mouth shut, but I will say that I expected this movie to be like Silent House, or Last House on the Left, but I can assure you it goes much deeper than that. The movie does an excellent job of letting you develop actual feelings for the characters, before they pull the rug out from underneath you. Many times, this drastic change in environment happens much too soon, and the audience hasn't had enough time to get to know, let alone empathize with the characters. Most of this movie doesn't even feel like a scary movie, because of its attention to personal relationships.
The ending is great.
Cons- I didn't really have any, but if I had to pick one it would be the same pet peeve I have with all scary movies of this nature: don't go near the house where people were murdered. It's generally not a good idea.
Wrap up- I was so pleasantly surprised with this film. I found myself enjoying it more so than I analyzed it, which doesn't happen often enough.
Pros- I really like Jennifer Lawrence, and this movie certainly didn't make me feel otherwise. I felt, unlike a lot of scary movies, she portrayed how a teen would talk and act: with lots of eye rolls and personality. The relationship her character, Elissa, had with her mother also felt realistic, including lots of teen angst and resentment, along with some amicable, low-key scenes thrown in. The leading male, Max Thieriot, was impossible not to fall in love with. He was so stinking cute, but also pathetic in many ways. It was easy to see why Elissa had a hard time keeping her hands off.
In terms of the plot, I thought it was almost flawlessly executed. The ability of the movie to portray Tyler and Carrie Anne as the antagonists, with Elissa and Ryan as the protagonists worked beautifully. I really don't want to give away too much of the ending on this one, so I'll keep my mouth shut, but I will say that I expected this movie to be like Silent House, or Last House on the Left, but I can assure you it goes much deeper than that. The movie does an excellent job of letting you develop actual feelings for the characters, before they pull the rug out from underneath you. Many times, this drastic change in environment happens much too soon, and the audience hasn't had enough time to get to know, let alone empathize with the characters. Most of this movie doesn't even feel like a scary movie, because of its attention to personal relationships.
The ending is great.
Cons- I didn't really have any, but if I had to pick one it would be the same pet peeve I have with all scary movies of this nature: don't go near the house where people were murdered. It's generally not a good idea.
Wrap up- I was so pleasantly surprised with this film. I found myself enjoying it more so than I analyzed it, which doesn't happen often enough.
Monday, August 12, 2013
Film Filter: Off - The Conjuring
Film Filter: Off- I believe I had seen this movie advertised as a preview before watching the Evil Dead, and I knew I wanted to see it. Despite the fact that the plot has been used time and time again it looked promising and, well, there's only one way to find out if it is.
Pros- I have to hand it to the actors, as they all did an admirable job. I especially liked Vera Farmiga's character, and her innate likability. She portrayed a nurturing mother character very well, and the relationship with her on-screen husband, Patrick Warren, was very believable. Patrick is no amateur when it comes to horror flicks either, as he can be seen in Insidious, and its sequel which is set to come out next month. I thought Lili Taylor also did a great job in a difficult role, having to be both incredibly nurturing and possessed.
One of the things I thoroughly enjoyed was the dual stories being conveyed at the same time. While, yes, this plot is overdone, it was refreshed by the fact that the story is being told from two perspectives. Interestingly, I found myself more interested in the storyline focused around the Warrens, who are ghost hunters, than I did the Perrons, who was the family being haunted.
It never hurts to have a scary movie that is "based on a true story", and this one seems to be a bit more legit than the rest. I would encourage anyone who has seen this film to visit Ed and Lorraine Warren's website to get some deeper information regarding some of the tales found in the film.
In terms of the movie itself, I can't say I have screamed out loud in a theater so many times since The Woman In Black. This film has some great uses with pop-out moments, that really scare the bejeezus out of you! I had successfully shrieked, flailed, spilled, soda, and kicked the poor person in front of me by the time the movie had ended. That's a pretty decent analysis of its effectiveness right there, above and beyond the verbal praise given to the film. The movie was well structured, there was enough information left open to keep you interested, and the pacing felt pretty standard.
Cons- The movie itself didn't have a lot of cons. The only thing I found myself really wondering was why the Warrens kept all of the possessed items they have collected throughout the years in a room in their house...with their young daughter. I don't care how many times you mention to a kid NOT to enter a room, they're still going to want to. In fact, they're likely to want to even more, now that they know it is forbidden. I just feel like that's a pretty big gamble to have just sitting in your house behind a (sometimes) locked door. And, couldn't at any point one of the spirits decide to unlock the door? I don't know, I guess they have a pretty good amount of control over the situation, but it seems a little inconsistent to me. It's safe enough to keep in your house, but so dangerous you can't touch anything.
P.S.- I think I, and everyone in the theater, wanted to know what Lorraine saw. For real.
Wrap up- This is an excellent movie, with some really scary moments, and an interesting and slightly unique plot. I would highly recommend it.
Pros- I have to hand it to the actors, as they all did an admirable job. I especially liked Vera Farmiga's character, and her innate likability. She portrayed a nurturing mother character very well, and the relationship with her on-screen husband, Patrick Warren, was very believable. Patrick is no amateur when it comes to horror flicks either, as he can be seen in Insidious, and its sequel which is set to come out next month. I thought Lili Taylor also did a great job in a difficult role, having to be both incredibly nurturing and possessed.
One of the things I thoroughly enjoyed was the dual stories being conveyed at the same time. While, yes, this plot is overdone, it was refreshed by the fact that the story is being told from two perspectives. Interestingly, I found myself more interested in the storyline focused around the Warrens, who are ghost hunters, than I did the Perrons, who was the family being haunted.
It never hurts to have a scary movie that is "based on a true story", and this one seems to be a bit more legit than the rest. I would encourage anyone who has seen this film to visit Ed and Lorraine Warren's website to get some deeper information regarding some of the tales found in the film.
In terms of the movie itself, I can't say I have screamed out loud in a theater so many times since The Woman In Black. This film has some great uses with pop-out moments, that really scare the bejeezus out of you! I had successfully shrieked, flailed, spilled, soda, and kicked the poor person in front of me by the time the movie had ended. That's a pretty decent analysis of its effectiveness right there, above and beyond the verbal praise given to the film. The movie was well structured, there was enough information left open to keep you interested, and the pacing felt pretty standard.
Cons- The movie itself didn't have a lot of cons. The only thing I found myself really wondering was why the Warrens kept all of the possessed items they have collected throughout the years in a room in their house...with their young daughter. I don't care how many times you mention to a kid NOT to enter a room, they're still going to want to. In fact, they're likely to want to even more, now that they know it is forbidden. I just feel like that's a pretty big gamble to have just sitting in your house behind a (sometimes) locked door. And, couldn't at any point one of the spirits decide to unlock the door? I don't know, I guess they have a pretty good amount of control over the situation, but it seems a little inconsistent to me. It's safe enough to keep in your house, but so dangerous you can't touch anything.
P.S.- I think I, and everyone in the theater, wanted to know what Lorraine saw. For real.
Wrap up- This is an excellent movie, with some really scary moments, and an interesting and slightly unique plot. I would highly recommend it.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Film Filter: Off - World War Z
Film Filter: Off- This movie received rave reviews, and I couldn't stop hearing about it. I was obviously really pumped to go and see it, as did many, since the theater was sold out.
Pros- Having Brad Pitt as the leading man never really hurt a film, in my opinion. It's always important to have a strong actor when you're trying to put together a movie where there is limited interaction between the lead actor and other human beings. Much like Castaway and I Am Legend, the actors need to rely on themselves and their abilities to make the film work, as they have few counterparts, and I think Brad Pitt does a pretty good job of keeping the film together.
I really liked that there weren't a lot of other A list actors involved, especially in regards to his wife. I thought Mireille Enos did a great job as his wife, and I don't think a stereotypical supermodel A list actress could have done it as well. Who knows, but I liked her in the role.
I thought the pacing and evolution of Brad Pitt's character's ability to figure out what was going on was well executed. There was enough information to keep you interested, but enough information missing to keep you invested in the plot of the film.
The zombies were interesting, as they moved quickly, and not at a stereotypically crawling pace. It definitely added a new dimension to the idea of zombie attacks, similar to that of 28 Days Later.
The special effects were good, and certainly added to the movie. It's hard to do a zombie movie of this magnitude without using special effects, and I feel they utilized them wisely. Also, on an unrelated note, there was a surprise death at the beginning that I found highly unexpected and effective to the plot.
Cons- Ok, there were a few discrepancies here and there that I feel were deliberately overlooked for cinematic appeal. One of particular note was the dramatic "inject-yourself-with-a-random-disease" scene. He could have easily written a sign saying "ring the phone when I have the right one" and held the vials up to the camera. Problem solved.
Despite the fact that the zombies were different from their depiction in the majority of films, I'm not sure I, or the rest of the audience, really responded appropriately to the zombies when we got to interact with them one on one. The whole teeth clicking and head pounding were highly amusing and the audience laughed several times. I'm not sure if that was the intention of the scenes, but I feel like it wasn't. Perhaps I'm wrong.
Lastly, and most annoyingly so, this movie is about an 86% rip off of I Am Legend. Now, before you jump down my throat by saying, "Well Corri, World War Z was a 2006 novel that came out before the movie AND before I Am Legend which wasn't released until 2007." Yes, this is true, but I Am Legend was ALSO a book, and was written in 1954, so, boo yah. I know a lot of people hate on I Am Legend and Will Smith, and say World War Z was a much better film, but there's something to be said about the emotional attachment garnered in I Am Legend that just isn't there in World War Z. Hell, I watched it a few weeks back and I barely remember enough of it to be able to blog about it, not because it was a bad movie, but because it was forgettable. I Am Legend at least had emotional connections that were deepened because of a great loss, as opposed to a happy go lucky we all live to see each other ending found in World War Z. Maybe I am just biased, but since Will Smith's movie came out first, and I am partial to it I have to give this round to I Am Legend, and call World War Z out for what it is: a copycat.
Pros- Having Brad Pitt as the leading man never really hurt a film, in my opinion. It's always important to have a strong actor when you're trying to put together a movie where there is limited interaction between the lead actor and other human beings. Much like Castaway and I Am Legend, the actors need to rely on themselves and their abilities to make the film work, as they have few counterparts, and I think Brad Pitt does a pretty good job of keeping the film together.
I really liked that there weren't a lot of other A list actors involved, especially in regards to his wife. I thought Mireille Enos did a great job as his wife, and I don't think a stereotypical supermodel A list actress could have done it as well. Who knows, but I liked her in the role.
I thought the pacing and evolution of Brad Pitt's character's ability to figure out what was going on was well executed. There was enough information to keep you interested, but enough information missing to keep you invested in the plot of the film.
The zombies were interesting, as they moved quickly, and not at a stereotypically crawling pace. It definitely added a new dimension to the idea of zombie attacks, similar to that of 28 Days Later.
The special effects were good, and certainly added to the movie. It's hard to do a zombie movie of this magnitude without using special effects, and I feel they utilized them wisely. Also, on an unrelated note, there was a surprise death at the beginning that I found highly unexpected and effective to the plot.
Cons- Ok, there were a few discrepancies here and there that I feel were deliberately overlooked for cinematic appeal. One of particular note was the dramatic "inject-yourself-with-a-random-disease" scene. He could have easily written a sign saying "ring the phone when I have the right one" and held the vials up to the camera. Problem solved.
Despite the fact that the zombies were different from their depiction in the majority of films, I'm not sure I, or the rest of the audience, really responded appropriately to the zombies when we got to interact with them one on one. The whole teeth clicking and head pounding were highly amusing and the audience laughed several times. I'm not sure if that was the intention of the scenes, but I feel like it wasn't. Perhaps I'm wrong.
Lastly, and most annoyingly so, this movie is about an 86% rip off of I Am Legend. Now, before you jump down my throat by saying, "Well Corri, World War Z was a 2006 novel that came out before the movie AND before I Am Legend which wasn't released until 2007." Yes, this is true, but I Am Legend was ALSO a book, and was written in 1954, so, boo yah. I know a lot of people hate on I Am Legend and Will Smith, and say World War Z was a much better film, but there's something to be said about the emotional attachment garnered in I Am Legend that just isn't there in World War Z. Hell, I watched it a few weeks back and I barely remember enough of it to be able to blog about it, not because it was a bad movie, but because it was forgettable. I Am Legend at least had emotional connections that were deepened because of a great loss, as opposed to a happy go lucky we all live to see each other ending found in World War Z. Maybe I am just biased, but since Will Smith's movie came out first, and I am partial to it I have to give this round to I Am Legend, and call World War Z out for what it is: a copycat.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Film Filter: Off - Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters
Film Filter: Off- I had chalked this film up to being as close to the bottom of the barrel as possible before I pushed play, but I have to say that (given my extraordinarily low expectations) it surpassed my initial judgment.
Pros- First off, it was produced by Will Ferrell. It went like this, (about 2 minutes into the opening credits) "Woah, rewind that." "Why?" "Just do it." "Ok." "See, I was right! Will Ferrell!" That may seem trivial, but I will say that knowing that he had a hand in the production shed a lot of light on the film and some of its idiosyncrasies.
Speaking of the opening credits, I thought they were very well executed (pun intended). They creatively and effectively laid out the main idea of the story while also moving the credits along. It was a small victory, but it did not go unnoticed.
Although there were parts that felt a wee bit contrived, I have to say that unlike most films, the dialogue felt natural and most of the character relationships worked well too. That being said, none of the above were appropriate for the time period of the film, but if the intent was a modernized tone in an antiquated setting, we have a winner. If not, well, better luck next time, Ron Burgundy.
The pacing of this film was nearly flawless. It gave enough background information to allow the story to have a reference point, and that back story was alluded to many times throughout the film as well. The movie also did a good job of mixing the action with the plot; it interchanged between the two pretty evenly.
Lastly, they took a well known story and innovated it brilliantly. Perhaps there were nuances that were not preferred by some audiences, but it can't be denied that the strategy of taking a fairy tale classic and retelling it with the victims as badass heroes is a unique, and fun take to witness on-screen. Sure, there were definitely moments of predictability and cheesiness, but this movie was refreshing in its ability to recreate a story without boring us to tears.
Oh, did I mention Famke Jensen? Rawwr.
Cons-
Despite being horribly cute and formidably badass, the poor-man's-Rachel-Weisz of a lead actress got kind of annoying. She was too confrontational, which definitely ended up getting her into trouble. As tough as she was, she attempted to take on a pack of 5 or 6 pissed off grown men and she had no weapon. To top it all off, she bites the sheriff's nose as he's trying to talk to her. Granted, the guy was a total douchebag, but an intelligent young woman would have tried to coax her way out, then fight them off., not just flail around uncontrollably with no plan. Tsk, tsk.
My next annoyance is the lack of accountability of Hansel. She was getting the shit kicked out of her, was nearly sexually assaulted while Hansel is...banging some hot witch in a pond. Real brotherly love, right there. Moreover, when they finally meet up again, she never asks where we was. Lucky for him, I guess, since she probably would have bitten his nose off too if she knew the truth.
The last con I have is more of an overlying theme. There is almost an unnecessary amount of f bombs dropped in this movie, which is fine when in the right context. In this film, however, they appear amidst a sea of corny, predictable, one liners. Ewww. Curse words are like plastic surgery; if they won't enhance what's already there, they are pointless.
Wrap up- This movie leaves no loose ends, has a lot of action, and adds ingenuity to a story we all love to hate. It not only ties up its own loose ends, but those of the original fairy tale as well. As long as you don't take this film any more seriously than you would take a Will Ferrell movie, I think you're in for a treat.
Pros- First off, it was produced by Will Ferrell. It went like this, (about 2 minutes into the opening credits) "Woah, rewind that." "Why?" "Just do it." "Ok." "See, I was right! Will Ferrell!" That may seem trivial, but I will say that knowing that he had a hand in the production shed a lot of light on the film and some of its idiosyncrasies.
Speaking of the opening credits, I thought they were very well executed (pun intended). They creatively and effectively laid out the main idea of the story while also moving the credits along. It was a small victory, but it did not go unnoticed.
Although there were parts that felt a wee bit contrived, I have to say that unlike most films, the dialogue felt natural and most of the character relationships worked well too. That being said, none of the above were appropriate for the time period of the film, but if the intent was a modernized tone in an antiquated setting, we have a winner. If not, well, better luck next time, Ron Burgundy.
The pacing of this film was nearly flawless. It gave enough background information to allow the story to have a reference point, and that back story was alluded to many times throughout the film as well. The movie also did a good job of mixing the action with the plot; it interchanged between the two pretty evenly.
Lastly, they took a well known story and innovated it brilliantly. Perhaps there were nuances that were not preferred by some audiences, but it can't be denied that the strategy of taking a fairy tale classic and retelling it with the victims as badass heroes is a unique, and fun take to witness on-screen. Sure, there were definitely moments of predictability and cheesiness, but this movie was refreshing in its ability to recreate a story without boring us to tears.
Oh, did I mention Famke Jensen? Rawwr.
Cons-
Despite being horribly cute and formidably badass, the poor-man's-Rachel-Weisz of a lead actress got kind of annoying. She was too confrontational, which definitely ended up getting her into trouble. As tough as she was, she attempted to take on a pack of 5 or 6 pissed off grown men and she had no weapon. To top it all off, she bites the sheriff's nose as he's trying to talk to her. Granted, the guy was a total douchebag, but an intelligent young woman would have tried to coax her way out, then fight them off., not just flail around uncontrollably with no plan. Tsk, tsk.
My next annoyance is the lack of accountability of Hansel. She was getting the shit kicked out of her, was nearly sexually assaulted while Hansel is...banging some hot witch in a pond. Real brotherly love, right there. Moreover, when they finally meet up again, she never asks where we was. Lucky for him, I guess, since she probably would have bitten his nose off too if she knew the truth.
The last con I have is more of an overlying theme. There is almost an unnecessary amount of f bombs dropped in this movie, which is fine when in the right context. In this film, however, they appear amidst a sea of corny, predictable, one liners. Ewww. Curse words are like plastic surgery; if they won't enhance what's already there, they are pointless.
Wrap up- This movie leaves no loose ends, has a lot of action, and adds ingenuity to a story we all love to hate. It not only ties up its own loose ends, but those of the original fairy tale as well. As long as you don't take this film any more seriously than you would take a Will Ferrell movie, I think you're in for a treat.
Monday, April 8, 2013
Film Filter: Off - Evil Dead
Film Filter: Off So I was waiting diligently for this film to come out, and I even went so far as to watch the original (which I'm embarrassed to admit, I don't do often enough) before I went to the theater. Needless to say, after watching the trailer and hearing all the hype, I was pretty stoked to see this movie.
Pros- This film followed the plot of the original pretty closely, which I consider a good thing. There is definitely a difference between a re-make, a re-telling, and a sequel, and it's pretty clear that this is a solid re-make, with some dollops of ingenuity thrown in as well.
I can't really say a whole lot about the actors, as it doesn't really take a lot of strong ability to portray frightened adolescents, however I will say that they were very well cast for their roles. Each character had their own little niche that they fit into to make up the story, and some of them even had to act possessed and be psychotic, which I assume would be pretty hard on its own. Add into the equation that they must also go back and forth between said possessed state and their normal character state and then you get a decently challenging role.
This movie, based on previews, appears to be 90% gore. Surprisingly, despite the fact that there is almost a sufferable amount of blood, it is fairly evenly balanced with other scare tactics as well. The build up to all of the gory scenes was fantastic, comparable to some scenes in Sinister where you KNEW something was going to happen, but it scared you anyway. Those are pretty magic moments, right thurr. They also have a good, though slightly over the top, system of incorporating music into the film. Again, like most horror flicks, it strongly foreshadowed an event, but if that's something that bothered you immensely, than maybe scary movies aren't your thing and you should check out some rom coms.
One of the things this movie does well that separates itself from the pack is its ability to show the un-showable. Some movies go there, but the vast majority leave you with the individual parts to piece together the grotesque moment ahead, and let your imagination fill in the gaps. This film does not, it's pretty much all right there on the table for you to see. The jury's still out on if it made the film better, but the movie certainly gets points for being ballsy.
Holy intro. I watched a pretty unsettling preview (The Conjuring...pretty stoked to see that one!) and felt relieved when the movie actually started, since I knew the plot would work its way into the scary parts and not start with them. Wrong. It did a throwback to a much older time period, which did two things 1) set the movie up with some background info, and 2) be delightfully unpredictable for those of us expecting the beginning to mirror that of the original film. Genius!
Lastly, as I could probably go on, this movie refreshed my faith in re-makes, as there are some pitiful excuses for them out there. It did not derail itself form the original, but instead added very important background information, refreshed plot points to make them applicable to modern day while also furthering the story in a believable way, and filled in gaps in the story line. Sure, it was quite different in parts, but the story is pretty much the same thing with a more modern feel, which is how good remakes should be. That being said, there is a time, place, and reason for a remake, and not every horror movie made circa 1980 needs to have a makeover. There's a lot to be said for antiquated horror, and we also have to remember that, at the time, some of those movies were the best of the genre.
Cons- Other than slightly over-the-top musical excerpts, and some slight inconsistencies with the storyline, I really didn't have any cons.
Wrap up: If you're not interested in blood and gore, this movie is most definitely not for you. If you can stomach the gross parts (which is more than half the movie) then I highly recommend it.
Pros- This film followed the plot of the original pretty closely, which I consider a good thing. There is definitely a difference between a re-make, a re-telling, and a sequel, and it's pretty clear that this is a solid re-make, with some dollops of ingenuity thrown in as well.
I can't really say a whole lot about the actors, as it doesn't really take a lot of strong ability to portray frightened adolescents, however I will say that they were very well cast for their roles. Each character had their own little niche that they fit into to make up the story, and some of them even had to act possessed and be psychotic, which I assume would be pretty hard on its own. Add into the equation that they must also go back and forth between said possessed state and their normal character state and then you get a decently challenging role.
This movie, based on previews, appears to be 90% gore. Surprisingly, despite the fact that there is almost a sufferable amount of blood, it is fairly evenly balanced with other scare tactics as well. The build up to all of the gory scenes was fantastic, comparable to some scenes in Sinister where you KNEW something was going to happen, but it scared you anyway. Those are pretty magic moments, right thurr. They also have a good, though slightly over the top, system of incorporating music into the film. Again, like most horror flicks, it strongly foreshadowed an event, but if that's something that bothered you immensely, than maybe scary movies aren't your thing and you should check out some rom coms.
One of the things this movie does well that separates itself from the pack is its ability to show the un-showable. Some movies go there, but the vast majority leave you with the individual parts to piece together the grotesque moment ahead, and let your imagination fill in the gaps. This film does not, it's pretty much all right there on the table for you to see. The jury's still out on if it made the film better, but the movie certainly gets points for being ballsy.
Holy intro. I watched a pretty unsettling preview (The Conjuring...pretty stoked to see that one!) and felt relieved when the movie actually started, since I knew the plot would work its way into the scary parts and not start with them. Wrong. It did a throwback to a much older time period, which did two things 1) set the movie up with some background info, and 2) be delightfully unpredictable for those of us expecting the beginning to mirror that of the original film. Genius!
Lastly, as I could probably go on, this movie refreshed my faith in re-makes, as there are some pitiful excuses for them out there. It did not derail itself form the original, but instead added very important background information, refreshed plot points to make them applicable to modern day while also furthering the story in a believable way, and filled in gaps in the story line. Sure, it was quite different in parts, but the story is pretty much the same thing with a more modern feel, which is how good remakes should be. That being said, there is a time, place, and reason for a remake, and not every horror movie made circa 1980 needs to have a makeover. There's a lot to be said for antiquated horror, and we also have to remember that, at the time, some of those movies were the best of the genre.
Cons- Other than slightly over-the-top musical excerpts, and some slight inconsistencies with the storyline, I really didn't have any cons.
Wrap up: If you're not interested in blood and gore, this movie is most definitely not for you. If you can stomach the gross parts (which is more than half the movie) then I highly recommend it.
Monday, April 1, 2013
Film Filter: Off - The Raven
Film Filter: Off- I can remember watching a preview for this movie, and being intrigued. Much like The Woman in Black, this is a period horror flick that depicts a less chaotic time in regards to technology and resources. Unlike other "based on true events" films, this one almost necessitated some research, as it is about a historical, dark writer that nearly everyone is familiar with. For my own personal satisfaction, I needed to know the lines between fact and fiction, and if you have watched, or will watch this film, I would encourage you to do the same.
Pros- It's pretty near impossible to do a Poe story in modern times, but the time period the film takes place is definitely critical to the film's pace, and ultimately resolve. Those unhappy with the speed of the plot I think forget that we are witnessing a time period void of any modern technology. Every discovery and communication is thus slowed down to a believable degree to, in my opinion, enhance the films believed authenticity. Did it make it an edge of your seat thrill ride? No, but if that's what you're looking for you should have done a little research before you jumped into this movie.
The jury is still out for me on whether or not I am in love with John Cusack as Poe. I really do like Cusack as an actor, but there's something I can't put my finger on regarding his performance. Granted, I think he did as good a job as one could do with Poe, but I'm not sure the director found the best balance for the direction of Poe's character. I could be way off base, but he seemed a little quirky and antagonizing, but almost in a teasing manner. It could just be my perception, but I just viewed Poe a lot more serious than I think was portrayed in this film. Despite those notions, I really loved the pompous nature of Poe that was portrayed, along with his poetic and articulate line deliveries that made him look more intelligent than those he kept company with, which is why Cusack ultimately goes as a pro.
After having looked up a lot about Poe and his death, it made me appreciate the fine line this film tread in regards to fact v. fiction. It was pretty obvious when things were made up for cinematic reasons a lot of the time, but I really like the idea of taking a historical figure's untimely, and mysterious death, and creating a fictionalized account of what could have happened to yield the result. It's almost like writing a story with the ending first.
Cons- One of the big issues I had with this story was with the intermittent unbelievable moments. Unlike The Woman in Black, where we're dealing with supernatural beings out of our control, this movie is clearly dealing with supposed real life scenarios. Since the film does a very nice job of making 90% of what's going on feel realistic, the 10% of scenarios where it doesn't feel that way stand out. For example, the killer standing on the roof jumping down onto a police officer and slitting his throat as he pounces on him. I mean, his feet aren't even on the ground when he cuts him! It's just slightly fantastical, and I didn't really buy it. Or when the bricks are slightly different colored, which tells us the killer recently replaced old bricks with new ones when he hid the body inside. I didn't go to brick laying school, but I'm pretty sure that process would have taken a reeeaally long time, and the mortar wouldn't have dried and looked like the same mortar that the old bricks used.
Wrap up- I didn't think this movie was half bad, although there were a sprinkling of things I didn't enjoy or that I disagreed with. If you're into period thrillers or like dark historical horror movies, you would enjoy this. If you are a die hard Poe fan looking for 100% accuracy, this probably isn't for you.
Pros- It's pretty near impossible to do a Poe story in modern times, but the time period the film takes place is definitely critical to the film's pace, and ultimately resolve. Those unhappy with the speed of the plot I think forget that we are witnessing a time period void of any modern technology. Every discovery and communication is thus slowed down to a believable degree to, in my opinion, enhance the films believed authenticity. Did it make it an edge of your seat thrill ride? No, but if that's what you're looking for you should have done a little research before you jumped into this movie.
The jury is still out for me on whether or not I am in love with John Cusack as Poe. I really do like Cusack as an actor, but there's something I can't put my finger on regarding his performance. Granted, I think he did as good a job as one could do with Poe, but I'm not sure the director found the best balance for the direction of Poe's character. I could be way off base, but he seemed a little quirky and antagonizing, but almost in a teasing manner. It could just be my perception, but I just viewed Poe a lot more serious than I think was portrayed in this film. Despite those notions, I really loved the pompous nature of Poe that was portrayed, along with his poetic and articulate line deliveries that made him look more intelligent than those he kept company with, which is why Cusack ultimately goes as a pro.
After having looked up a lot about Poe and his death, it made me appreciate the fine line this film tread in regards to fact v. fiction. It was pretty obvious when things were made up for cinematic reasons a lot of the time, but I really like the idea of taking a historical figure's untimely, and mysterious death, and creating a fictionalized account of what could have happened to yield the result. It's almost like writing a story with the ending first.
Cons- One of the big issues I had with this story was with the intermittent unbelievable moments. Unlike The Woman in Black, where we're dealing with supernatural beings out of our control, this movie is clearly dealing with supposed real life scenarios. Since the film does a very nice job of making 90% of what's going on feel realistic, the 10% of scenarios where it doesn't feel that way stand out. For example, the killer standing on the roof jumping down onto a police officer and slitting his throat as he pounces on him. I mean, his feet aren't even on the ground when he cuts him! It's just slightly fantastical, and I didn't really buy it. Or when the bricks are slightly different colored, which tells us the killer recently replaced old bricks with new ones when he hid the body inside. I didn't go to brick laying school, but I'm pretty sure that process would have taken a reeeaally long time, and the mortar wouldn't have dried and looked like the same mortar that the old bricks used.
Wrap up- I didn't think this movie was half bad, although there were a sprinkling of things I didn't enjoy or that I disagreed with. If you're into period thrillers or like dark historical horror movies, you would enjoy this. If you are a die hard Poe fan looking for 100% accuracy, this probably isn't for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)