Film Filter: Off- I was perusing Netflix for a good, scary Halloween flick, and most looked a little on the cheesy side. This one, on the other hand, boasted Julianne Moore and an intriguing description, so I went for it.
Pros- I don't dislike Julianne Moore, but I am not her number one fan either. She's just one of those actresses I don't pay a lot of attention to, but I will say she seems to play the estranged mother (The Forgotten, Carrie) very well. This movie was no exception, and I really enjoyed her realistic banter and interactions with her brother and her father throughout the film. She brought a believability to the film that really helped it along.
As evidenced with my love of films like Primal Fear and The Exorcism of Emily Rose, I have the utmost respect for actors who have to portray more than one character in a film- who are usually very opposite each other in personality- and pull it off well. Myers is an actor with which I have more recently noted, and he pulls this off impeccably, never once even speaking with his native Irish accent. I was impressed, though shades of it came out every once in awhile, if you were listening carefully.
One of the things that, retrospectively, I appreciated was the film's pacing. There was a twist that not only wasn't revealed, but wasn't even alluded to until more than halfway through the film. This minor shift not only sped up the timetable of the film's ending, but also changed the audience's perception on a few characters, as well as answer some questions that lacked clarity early on. There is another twist at the end, which is slightly open-ended, but I don't nearly mind it as much as I thought I would, as it was smartly played out.
Cons- Maybe, just maybe, Moore might have better relationships with her on-screen offspring if she stuck around to raise them? I can't really think of any moment where she and her daughter were on screen together where she wasn't picking her up from her brother's, or dropping her off with her father. This is all to study a case given to her by her father (who the film has us believe is a colleague, but not her boss) that she didn't want to take in the first place. Le sigh.
Despite the fact that this film is definitely dubbed more as a thriller than a horror flick, I think they could have done a little more to insert some aspects of good horror movies into it. Pop-up moments were pretty few and far between, and were also highly predictable. The little amount of gore in the film was also pretty clearly televised beforehand. Chase scenes were a little anti-climactic and...you guessed it...predictable. The movie wasn't bad because of this, don't get me wrong, but I think it definitely could have been enhanced with the use of it. The scariest parts for me was when I was on the edge of my seat and my friend's dog barked because trick-or-treaters were at the house. No bueno.
Wrap up- I was pleasantly surprised by this Netflix gem on Halloween, and I encourage any possession/multiple personality aficionados to check it out.
Sunday, November 3, 2013
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Film Filter: Off - The Last Will and Testament of Rosalind Leigh
Film Filter: Off- This movie was suggested to me and was described as haunting and creepy, so naturally I figured I'd give it a shot.
Pros- Firstly, this movie gets mad props for its ingenuity. I have never witnessed a film quite like it, and it's likely that none similar to its style will be hitting theaters anytime soon. That being said, therein lies room for some interpretive confusion, but it is still very unique and deserves credit for that.
This movie doesn't appear to have been done on any sort of large budget, so I will also give it credit for being fiscally responsible, but also effective. It didn't feel like a "low budget" film, although it likely was, so I appreciate the utilization of resources without overdoing it financially, as most films tend to do.
I believe one could write a thesis paper on the symbolism present in this film. Despite its often unclear direction, it is undeniable that this film definitely has some inconspicuous representations. Along the same vein, the cinematography is brilliantly played out in this regard, as there are many scenes where Leon physically emulates the crazy statues and artwork that decorate the house. It is also done ever so subtly, so there very well have been more than the two instances I observed.
I feel like the staple of a quality movie is one that makes you think, and this one sometimes seems like it does nothing but that. Taken to an extreme degree, which this movie may have done, this idea becomes a downer for movies trying to seem "too intellectual", but it is so refreshing to see something unique and different with films that one can almost overlook it. Almost.
Cons- One of the things that I hate in films is undeveloped characters or unfilled plot-points. This movie has lots of both. Who was the woman on the phone? Are they dating? Were they dating? Why did his dad die? What is with the cult? These are just a handful of questions I found myself asking throughout the movie's tiny 82 minute package. Some might argue that those points are irrelevant, to which I say pish posh. If the relationship with his psychiatrist was irrelevant, why did they allude to one deeper than patient to doctor? Not to expand upon it is almost a crime at that point. It doesn't take four extra scenes to close up a minor story line, so it feels like they were more overlooked than they were intentionally dismissed. Pending your interpretation of the film, however, an intentional dismissal may actually make sense. Confusing? You bet.
So let's talk about what the eff this movie is about, because I had to do some serious research before I felt comfortable writing about this film. The ending is about as wide open as the Grand Canyon, and I struggled to come up with any explanation for why the movie was ending the way it did. At first, like most I assume, I was kind of perturbed as we are so often spoon-fed every bit and piece of the movies we watch and anything to the contrary seems torturous. "Really, movie? You're going to make me THINK to figure out this ending? Damnit." So, what does it mean? I don't really want to give everything away, but there are two schools of thought that most people exhibit in regards to this film. The first is that the concept of loneliness takes a physical shape and haunts Leon, Rosalind's son, while he is fixing to sell the house after her death. The notion is that loneliness is what killed Rosalind, or at least acted as a catalyst in her death. The second option is one of those "this is all in your head" endings in which this is all a fabrication of the ghost of Rosalind's imagination. This, although being quite profound, unique, and poignant, doesn't make as much sense to me, as it would seem that she could control the outcome, which the movie showcases she clearly cannot. I'm more inclined to believe the former of the two choices.
Not so much a huge downfall, but the fact that religion is tied into this film (again pending your interpretation) is a bit more than misleading. The film leads you to believe with every fiber of its being that this movie has something to do with religion and faith, which in a small way I guess it does. It seems to me, though, that upon further inspection the angelic cult hobby could have just as easily been replaced with a knitting hobby and could have carried out the same feeling. Of course, not maybe as clearly, as the point I feel is brought up is the lack of support Rosalind gets from her son because of her hobby. Not too many young boys are hard-core anti-knitting, I suppose. Regardless, the trickery of the illusion of religious ties is confusing and leads you in various directions. As previously mentioned, though, depending on your thoughts on what the film makers were trying to accomplish, this might make perfect sense. Who knows?
Wrap up- I love the idea of a film making you think, but there has to be a happy medium between that and a choose-your-own-adventure movie. Maybe they didn't want to spoon-feed the audience, but you can't starve us either! Despite the conflicting feelings I have, I strongly encourage you to watch this as it really does make you think. A lot. For a long time. It's probably one of those films that could be behooved by watching it twice.
Pros- Firstly, this movie gets mad props for its ingenuity. I have never witnessed a film quite like it, and it's likely that none similar to its style will be hitting theaters anytime soon. That being said, therein lies room for some interpretive confusion, but it is still very unique and deserves credit for that.
This movie doesn't appear to have been done on any sort of large budget, so I will also give it credit for being fiscally responsible, but also effective. It didn't feel like a "low budget" film, although it likely was, so I appreciate the utilization of resources without overdoing it financially, as most films tend to do.
I believe one could write a thesis paper on the symbolism present in this film. Despite its often unclear direction, it is undeniable that this film definitely has some inconspicuous representations. Along the same vein, the cinematography is brilliantly played out in this regard, as there are many scenes where Leon physically emulates the crazy statues and artwork that decorate the house. It is also done ever so subtly, so there very well have been more than the two instances I observed.
I feel like the staple of a quality movie is one that makes you think, and this one sometimes seems like it does nothing but that. Taken to an extreme degree, which this movie may have done, this idea becomes a downer for movies trying to seem "too intellectual", but it is so refreshing to see something unique and different with films that one can almost overlook it. Almost.
Cons- One of the things that I hate in films is undeveloped characters or unfilled plot-points. This movie has lots of both. Who was the woman on the phone? Are they dating? Were they dating? Why did his dad die? What is with the cult? These are just a handful of questions I found myself asking throughout the movie's tiny 82 minute package. Some might argue that those points are irrelevant, to which I say pish posh. If the relationship with his psychiatrist was irrelevant, why did they allude to one deeper than patient to doctor? Not to expand upon it is almost a crime at that point. It doesn't take four extra scenes to close up a minor story line, so it feels like they were more overlooked than they were intentionally dismissed. Pending your interpretation of the film, however, an intentional dismissal may actually make sense. Confusing? You bet.
So let's talk about what the eff this movie is about, because I had to do some serious research before I felt comfortable writing about this film. The ending is about as wide open as the Grand Canyon, and I struggled to come up with any explanation for why the movie was ending the way it did. At first, like most I assume, I was kind of perturbed as we are so often spoon-fed every bit and piece of the movies we watch and anything to the contrary seems torturous. "Really, movie? You're going to make me THINK to figure out this ending? Damnit." So, what does it mean? I don't really want to give everything away, but there are two schools of thought that most people exhibit in regards to this film. The first is that the concept of loneliness takes a physical shape and haunts Leon, Rosalind's son, while he is fixing to sell the house after her death. The notion is that loneliness is what killed Rosalind, or at least acted as a catalyst in her death. The second option is one of those "this is all in your head" endings in which this is all a fabrication of the ghost of Rosalind's imagination. This, although being quite profound, unique, and poignant, doesn't make as much sense to me, as it would seem that she could control the outcome, which the movie showcases she clearly cannot. I'm more inclined to believe the former of the two choices.
Not so much a huge downfall, but the fact that religion is tied into this film (again pending your interpretation) is a bit more than misleading. The film leads you to believe with every fiber of its being that this movie has something to do with religion and faith, which in a small way I guess it does. It seems to me, though, that upon further inspection the angelic cult hobby could have just as easily been replaced with a knitting hobby and could have carried out the same feeling. Of course, not maybe as clearly, as the point I feel is brought up is the lack of support Rosalind gets from her son because of her hobby. Not too many young boys are hard-core anti-knitting, I suppose. Regardless, the trickery of the illusion of religious ties is confusing and leads you in various directions. As previously mentioned, though, depending on your thoughts on what the film makers were trying to accomplish, this might make perfect sense. Who knows?
Wrap up- I love the idea of a film making you think, but there has to be a happy medium between that and a choose-your-own-adventure movie. Maybe they didn't want to spoon-feed the audience, but you can't starve us either! Despite the conflicting feelings I have, I strongly encourage you to watch this as it really does make you think. A lot. For a long time. It's probably one of those films that could be behooved by watching it twice.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Film Filter: Off - The Ruins
Film Filter: Off- My fiance had read the book, and was intrigued by the thought of the movie, so we decided to give it a whirl.
Pros- Props to them for trying to make this film feel as realistic as it could. Character interactions and situations were, for the most part, pretty believable. Going off of this concept is the implementation of bad situations during the day time, which again, made the movie feel more real. Especially in instances of a curse, where there is no tangible threat per se, it seems more believable that time of day or daylight wouldn't really be a factor.
Visually, the setting was very picturesque, which you may think is irrelevant to a horror movie. When characters are trapped in one location for nearly the whole movie experience, it's nice to have something pretty to look at.
I really liked the ingenuity of the idea. I don't think I've ever seen a movie quite like this one, and that is something in itself, as they garner some points for creativity. Granted, it was a book first, so the movie can't take all the credit.
Cons- In general the timing and events in the story seemed a little rushed. It's evident that, yes, they can't survive for much longer than a few days without food and water, but the events leading up to some of the death scenes seemed almost unnecessarily rushed and out of sequence.
Although I haven't read the book, I have researched it a bit, and it seems that (not unlike many film adaptations) the movie deviated. I found it interesting though, that with such a downer storyline already in place, that they opted for this moderately up-beat ending, as opposed to the downer ending in which the book resulted. I also feel that some of the points in the movie that were brought up didn't necessarily have as much meaning or depth because of the lack of development. Granted, movies don't have as much time as books to develop some of these ideas, but the viewers shouldn't be confused or misled for this reason alone. The adaptation may require more tweaking, or removing some parts, and I would imagine it's probably got to be a tough call to decide where to draw the line in that regard.
It's also interesting to me that they switched roles/genders in a lot of the fates of the characters. My hypothesis is for sex appeal to have the girls featured more often, but part of me wonders if the movie might have been different (in a good way) if the right characters were in the right situations, from the book's perspective.
Wrap up- This film is not bad, and is definitely unique and interesting. I have to put it in the "mildly forgettable" category, however, as it is just that.
Pros- Props to them for trying to make this film feel as realistic as it could. Character interactions and situations were, for the most part, pretty believable. Going off of this concept is the implementation of bad situations during the day time, which again, made the movie feel more real. Especially in instances of a curse, where there is no tangible threat per se, it seems more believable that time of day or daylight wouldn't really be a factor.
Visually, the setting was very picturesque, which you may think is irrelevant to a horror movie. When characters are trapped in one location for nearly the whole movie experience, it's nice to have something pretty to look at.
I really liked the ingenuity of the idea. I don't think I've ever seen a movie quite like this one, and that is something in itself, as they garner some points for creativity. Granted, it was a book first, so the movie can't take all the credit.
Cons- In general the timing and events in the story seemed a little rushed. It's evident that, yes, they can't survive for much longer than a few days without food and water, but the events leading up to some of the death scenes seemed almost unnecessarily rushed and out of sequence.
Although I haven't read the book, I have researched it a bit, and it seems that (not unlike many film adaptations) the movie deviated. I found it interesting though, that with such a downer storyline already in place, that they opted for this moderately up-beat ending, as opposed to the downer ending in which the book resulted. I also feel that some of the points in the movie that were brought up didn't necessarily have as much meaning or depth because of the lack of development. Granted, movies don't have as much time as books to develop some of these ideas, but the viewers shouldn't be confused or misled for this reason alone. The adaptation may require more tweaking, or removing some parts, and I would imagine it's probably got to be a tough call to decide where to draw the line in that regard.
It's also interesting to me that they switched roles/genders in a lot of the fates of the characters. My hypothesis is for sex appeal to have the girls featured more often, but part of me wonders if the movie might have been different (in a good way) if the right characters were in the right situations, from the book's perspective.
Wrap up- This film is not bad, and is definitely unique and interesting. I have to put it in the "mildly forgettable" category, however, as it is just that.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Film Filter: Off - The Fourth Kind
Film Filter: Off- I had seen this movie in theaters when it was originally released, but I had forgotten a lot of what happened and wanted to refresh it before I blogged about it. I do remember leaving the theater not being terribly impressed, but not remembering why, I figured I'd give it another go.
Pros- Let's start at the beginning, I guess. The introduction is very appealing, I like the PSA style, with the eerie background, and Milla Jovovich delivers it very well, while keeping it open ended. It was nice that the movie was wrapped up in the same manner, with the director giving input as well (who, I didn't realize the first time I saw it, was the interviewer as well)
Since we're on the topic of Milla already, I will take this time to commend her on a job well done. It's not easy to play a character who has so many emotions and dimensions, not to mention interactions with all kinds of people and, beings I guess. She has to go from possessed-ish (I don't know what you would call an alien possession, is it still possession?), to a sweet loving mother, to a horrified wife, to a calm doctor and all the way back around again. It has to be tiring, but she does the role justice. I also liked the way the rest of the film was cast, as it made the film feel a bit more realistic.
One of the scare tactics used in this film that isn't terribly common, thank God, is going from a straight black screen to a scary image. This is absolutely contrasting, and when the silence erupts into the chaotic noises that ensue from the hypnosis sessions or memories, it is visually and mentally jarring. It is also very effective.
I also liked that this film did not rely solely on fiction, as it was claimed at the beginning that these events were true, but also not totally on found footage or the appearance of it. Instead, they used the "found footage" and compared it to the dramatic re-enactment. They also did some clever things with the layout of the two screens to make it visually interesting when she was being interviewed at one point, which I thought was different and refreshing.
Cons- While this movie had a spooky introduction, and a rock solid beginning, it got more and more difficult to believe Dr. Tyler's story as it progressed. The directors did an admirable job trying to get her not to appear nuts, but towards the end the crazy won over and I was left a little confused. It was also confusing that the police officer was ready to arrest her without consulting ANY of the, oh, say 4 or 5 witnesses present for the hypnosis that resulted in paralysis. That's just lazy, bad police work. Abigail did a really good job standing up for herself too...all sobby and incoherent. She should have stood up for herself and DEMANDED due process. There was no evidence and she just kind of gave in. I have to say I lost some respect for her there.
Unfortunately, as eerie and thought provoking as this movie may be, it is not as based on true events and footage as it seems. Upon further investigation, it seems that Dr. Tyler was either an alias, or didn't exist. It also seems that the "real" Dr. Tyler (who isn't listed as an actress on the film or on IMDB) is an actress. This movie was also not shot in Nome, Alaska (as they have little to no trees, apparently) and the lack of the label "actual footage" on the video tapes, when the label was present on the recordings, is misleading too. Especially if "Dr. Tyler" isn't really "Dr. Tyler". That knowledge being public would definitely discredit the footage, as it would have to have been shot with the actress. Bummer.
Wrap Up: So, it wasn't real, big whoop. There are plenty of fake scary movies that are still hella-entertaining, but it does piss me off a bit that this film is particularly misleading with their production. I would recommend watching it, but definitely taking a lot of it with a big fat grain of salt.
Pros- Let's start at the beginning, I guess. The introduction is very appealing, I like the PSA style, with the eerie background, and Milla Jovovich delivers it very well, while keeping it open ended. It was nice that the movie was wrapped up in the same manner, with the director giving input as well (who, I didn't realize the first time I saw it, was the interviewer as well)
Since we're on the topic of Milla already, I will take this time to commend her on a job well done. It's not easy to play a character who has so many emotions and dimensions, not to mention interactions with all kinds of people and, beings I guess. She has to go from possessed-ish (I don't know what you would call an alien possession, is it still possession?), to a sweet loving mother, to a horrified wife, to a calm doctor and all the way back around again. It has to be tiring, but she does the role justice. I also liked the way the rest of the film was cast, as it made the film feel a bit more realistic.
One of the scare tactics used in this film that isn't terribly common, thank God, is going from a straight black screen to a scary image. This is absolutely contrasting, and when the silence erupts into the chaotic noises that ensue from the hypnosis sessions or memories, it is visually and mentally jarring. It is also very effective.
I also liked that this film did not rely solely on fiction, as it was claimed at the beginning that these events were true, but also not totally on found footage or the appearance of it. Instead, they used the "found footage" and compared it to the dramatic re-enactment. They also did some clever things with the layout of the two screens to make it visually interesting when she was being interviewed at one point, which I thought was different and refreshing.
Cons- While this movie had a spooky introduction, and a rock solid beginning, it got more and more difficult to believe Dr. Tyler's story as it progressed. The directors did an admirable job trying to get her not to appear nuts, but towards the end the crazy won over and I was left a little confused. It was also confusing that the police officer was ready to arrest her without consulting ANY of the, oh, say 4 or 5 witnesses present for the hypnosis that resulted in paralysis. That's just lazy, bad police work. Abigail did a really good job standing up for herself too...all sobby and incoherent. She should have stood up for herself and DEMANDED due process. There was no evidence and she just kind of gave in. I have to say I lost some respect for her there.
Unfortunately, as eerie and thought provoking as this movie may be, it is not as based on true events and footage as it seems. Upon further investigation, it seems that Dr. Tyler was either an alias, or didn't exist. It also seems that the "real" Dr. Tyler (who isn't listed as an actress on the film or on IMDB) is an actress. This movie was also not shot in Nome, Alaska (as they have little to no trees, apparently) and the lack of the label "actual footage" on the video tapes, when the label was present on the recordings, is misleading too. Especially if "Dr. Tyler" isn't really "Dr. Tyler". That knowledge being public would definitely discredit the footage, as it would have to have been shot with the actress. Bummer.
Wrap Up: So, it wasn't real, big whoop. There are plenty of fake scary movies that are still hella-entertaining, but it does piss me off a bit that this film is particularly misleading with their production. I would recommend watching it, but definitely taking a lot of it with a big fat grain of salt.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Film Filter: Off - Zodiac
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)