Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Film Filter: Off- The Order
Film Filter: Off- I have to be honest in that this is one of my better liked Theological Thrillers, but that can't dilute my ability to write a fair review. Upon watching it more recently, there were some pieces of it that irked me slightly.
Pros- Definitely Heath Ledger. I think he's a fantastic actor and, had his career not been cut short, would have accomplished some amazing things.
I also think the premise of the story is quite unique. Never in my experience with these types of movies have I heard of a Sin Eater, so it compelled me to do some research. Apparently, there is documentation of Sin Eaters in existence- the ritual primarily being practiced in the UK in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The movie seemed to have exaggerated the Sin Eater's literal role in eternal salvation, but hey, that's showbiz.
I also researched the order of the Carolingians, of which the film is based on. Sources say that this order is purely fictional, as their purpose serves to rid the earth of demons, ghosts, and otherworldly creatures. I can see how this group may have been deemed necessary in earlier centuries, where demonic possession and spiritual salvation were more prominent topics, but it remains to be seen whether there is truth to their existence. Perhaps this alleged fictional topic is why few movies discuss this topic or the group, but it is an interesting concept nonetheless.
I believe the acting in the film is well done, although I'm not a huge fan when directors choose a majority of actors that were featured together in another film (A Knight's Tale). I also thought, given the potential false nature of the information presented, the scenarios and acting were pretty realistic: the way Mara reacts when she is being attacked, Alex's reaction to death, Thomas's struggles with speech after he is briefly hanged- just to name a few. I believe it's important, especially when making a pseudo-fiction film, to try to maintain a believable nature to enhance the credibility, whether it be true or not.
Cons- Overall, the biggest problem with the film is the bastardization of what once was a real concept. Sin Eaters did exist, but the film took the perspective of turning him into an almost superhero. He is essentially immortal, and has abilities most people cannot possess, although the movie does point out that he can be killed. Given the prospect of the ability to live for many centuries and acquire innumerable wealth and knowledge, it seems a bit of a paradox that William is the last Sin Eater. Besides the potential consequence of eternal damnation, why aren't people coming out of the woodwork to take over? Or why is there only one left in the first place?
As I mentioned, I think the believability of the scenarios in the film is pretty good, which is why it irked me the very few times that it wasn't. In a few scenes, an underground cave is revealed to be a location where people can seek information from someone who is about to die via hanging. For whatever reason, their speaking voices are oddly altered, and not in a "you're about to have your vocal folds collapse" sort of way either. It made them sound cool, for sure, but realistic? Not so much.
Wrap up- Overall, this movie is thought-provoking and interesting. I was bummed to find out that most of it was probably fake, but in a way, that gives props to the movie for getting me to jump on the bandwagon.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Film FIlter: Off - The Ward
Film Filter: Off- I have to say that this movie was a very pleasant surprise. I didn't have exceptionally high hopes for it, but it's definitely worth watching.
Pros- First off, I'd like to commend director John Carpenter on his choice to star Amber Heard. She is ridiculously beautiful, but it turns out she's a decent actress as well. Kudos! I think the biggest thing that makes this movie successful is the pacing of the film. It starts out as generic horror films do, but it leaks the facts to you in a slow, intriguing fashion that hooks you in with its lack of information, but keeps you riveted by the information that IS present. This movie also contains a twist ending, so it really does keep you wondering until the very end.
I also think the acting on all the women's behalves was commendable. I always state how great an actor it takes to believably portray a crazy person, and this film proves it. The cast had to not only play young women in a mental hospital, but also show the varying sides of mental illness, as each character was very different.
Lastly, every good horror flick needs shock value. Pop-up moments, when used well and in moderation, are a must in scary movies. This film uses them well, despite their often predictability.
Cons- I have to reach to find some cons in this movie. I wasn't a huge fan of the makeup of the ghost. It felt a little over-the-top and cliche to me, as did some of the death scenes. Other than that, I really have no complaints.
Wrap up- This movie is a must-see if you liked Shutter Island. It's essentially the same storyline in many ways, other than it stars attractive females instead. I won't say that it's better, but definitely worth watching.
Pros- First off, I'd like to commend director John Carpenter on his choice to star Amber Heard. She is ridiculously beautiful, but it turns out she's a decent actress as well. Kudos! I think the biggest thing that makes this movie successful is the pacing of the film. It starts out as generic horror films do, but it leaks the facts to you in a slow, intriguing fashion that hooks you in with its lack of information, but keeps you riveted by the information that IS present. This movie also contains a twist ending, so it really does keep you wondering until the very end.
I also think the acting on all the women's behalves was commendable. I always state how great an actor it takes to believably portray a crazy person, and this film proves it. The cast had to not only play young women in a mental hospital, but also show the varying sides of mental illness, as each character was very different.
Lastly, every good horror flick needs shock value. Pop-up moments, when used well and in moderation, are a must in scary movies. This film uses them well, despite their often predictability.
Cons- I have to reach to find some cons in this movie. I wasn't a huge fan of the makeup of the ghost. It felt a little over-the-top and cliche to me, as did some of the death scenes. Other than that, I really have no complaints.
Wrap up- This movie is a must-see if you liked Shutter Island. It's essentially the same storyline in many ways, other than it stars attractive females instead. I won't say that it's better, but definitely worth watching.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Film Filter: Off - The Exorcism of Emily Rose
Film Filter: Off- I have to start out by saying this is probably my all time favorite horror flick. Anytime anyone asks me for a good recommendation, this is the first one I spout. I think it's virtually a flawlessly made scary movie, and it seriously creeps the shit out of me EVERY time I see it. For reals.
Pros- Besides everything? Hmm, let's start with the fact that it's my favorite (self-generated) movie genre of Theological Thriller. I love that movies of that classification have a haunting sense of realism to them, as they don't feature stereotypical movie "monsters" seeking blood or vengeance. For me, these films strike a deep cord of fear that roots itself in its plausibility. The idea of something I actually believe in haunting me without any way to control it, or myself, is much more frightening than a foot tall gingerbread man stalker, midget leprechaun assailant, or gargantuan hooked villain. But hey, that's just me.
This movie also has fantastic symbolism and cinematography. Leave it to a spiritually-rooted film to create mass symbolism (no pun intended), right? This film is no exception. Above and beyond its spiritual symbols, its use of the colors red and white in different scenes does not go unnoticed, and even the Rachmaninoff prelude in C# minor that is played by Emily on the piano is indicative of a dark, haunting theme. Also, the cinematography sort of piggybacks off of the symbolism concept. Although not exclusively relevant to each other, the screen shots and scenery in certain parts of the film help enhance the symbolism, while providing a wide array of aesthetics to feast on through the duration of the film.
Going off of that concept, the ability to have a story with a small group of key characters as opposed to one main character allows us to have a variety of stories and perspectives in the film. The nature of the time changes (going from the present to the past) also accounts for this. These concepts help the film to become diversified, while not deviating from the main point of the story.
The acting in the film is very good, especially on behalf of Jennifer Carpenter who plays Emily Rose. This seems to be Carpenter's first big film, and it mustn't have been easy to portray a possessed person. You know an actor does a great job when it isn't until the fifth time you've seen the movie that you think, "Gosh, that must've been really hard PRETENDING to be possessed..." because the thought that they aren't actually possessed hadn't occurred to you.
Cons- Psssh! Really?
Wrap-up- There are many other things that are great about this movie, but why read about it here? Why don't you just watch it already?
Pros- Besides everything? Hmm, let's start with the fact that it's my favorite (self-generated) movie genre of Theological Thriller. I love that movies of that classification have a haunting sense of realism to them, as they don't feature stereotypical movie "monsters" seeking blood or vengeance. For me, these films strike a deep cord of fear that roots itself in its plausibility. The idea of something I actually believe in haunting me without any way to control it, or myself, is much more frightening than a foot tall gingerbread man stalker, midget leprechaun assailant, or gargantuan hooked villain. But hey, that's just me.
This movie also has fantastic symbolism and cinematography. Leave it to a spiritually-rooted film to create mass symbolism (no pun intended), right? This film is no exception. Above and beyond its spiritual symbols, its use of the colors red and white in different scenes does not go unnoticed, and even the Rachmaninoff prelude in C# minor that is played by Emily on the piano is indicative of a dark, haunting theme. Also, the cinematography sort of piggybacks off of the symbolism concept. Although not exclusively relevant to each other, the screen shots and scenery in certain parts of the film help enhance the symbolism, while providing a wide array of aesthetics to feast on through the duration of the film.
Going off of that concept, the ability to have a story with a small group of key characters as opposed to one main character allows us to have a variety of stories and perspectives in the film. The nature of the time changes (going from the present to the past) also accounts for this. These concepts help the film to become diversified, while not deviating from the main point of the story.
The acting in the film is very good, especially on behalf of Jennifer Carpenter who plays Emily Rose. This seems to be Carpenter's first big film, and it mustn't have been easy to portray a possessed person. You know an actor does a great job when it isn't until the fifth time you've seen the movie that you think, "Gosh, that must've been really hard PRETENDING to be possessed..." because the thought that they aren't actually possessed hadn't occurred to you.
Cons- Psssh! Really?
Wrap-up- There are many other things that are great about this movie, but why read about it here? Why don't you just watch it already?
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Film Filter: Off - Orphan
Film Filter: Off - As per a request by my mother, I decided to rent this movie from Blockbuster. She had said that it was really good, and for the most part, I'd be inclined to agree.
Pros- Firstly, I have to commend the cast of the film, as I thought all characters were portrayed very well, especially Esther and Kate.
Another one of the things this movie had going for it was the way it interpreted a commonly used storyline. The familiar adoption or inclusion of another person who deviates from the "norm" is seen in a variety of films, some done better than others. One of the keys to using this concept well is the ability to allow the audience to grow to empathize with/pity the antagonist before they become the antagonist, which this film does well.
It's also refreshing to see a dysfunctional family on screen. Too often families are portrayed a little too picture perfect, and it makes it difficult to relate to them or get behind them or their situation in the film. The combination of a once unfaithful husband to a once alcoholic wife who miscarried her third child but bore a normal son and a deaf daughter definitely defines this family as far from perfect.
Lastly, the twist toward the end of this film is truly unexpected, and very unique. It puts a lot of prior actions into perspective, and helps move the story along rapidly after it's revealed.
Cons- Although Esther's character is slightly, if not completely deranged, I think sometimes the extremes of her actions come off as a little unbelievable at times. Of course, we all understand that she's pretty nuts, and crazy people tend to be unpredictable, but so much of the movie has a realistic tone to it, that her outburst sort of feel out of place.
The only other thing that I can complain about in regards to this film is the stupidity of Kate's other two children. Bribed to keep Esther's secrets from their parents, they both find themselves unable to tell their mother about Esther's behavior, even though it will clearly cause someone harm in the long run. Most of the time Esther is present for any opportunity in which they could rat her out, but the one time she is not, both of the kids wimp out. It becomes innately frustrating throughout the film, as it puts almost all of the protagonists into a stupid, helpless situation.
Wrap-up- Overall, this movie was very well done, with quite an unexpected ending. Thanks for the recommendation, Mom!
Pros- Firstly, I have to commend the cast of the film, as I thought all characters were portrayed very well, especially Esther and Kate.
Another one of the things this movie had going for it was the way it interpreted a commonly used storyline. The familiar adoption or inclusion of another person who deviates from the "norm" is seen in a variety of films, some done better than others. One of the keys to using this concept well is the ability to allow the audience to grow to empathize with/pity the antagonist before they become the antagonist, which this film does well.
It's also refreshing to see a dysfunctional family on screen. Too often families are portrayed a little too picture perfect, and it makes it difficult to relate to them or get behind them or their situation in the film. The combination of a once unfaithful husband to a once alcoholic wife who miscarried her third child but bore a normal son and a deaf daughter definitely defines this family as far from perfect.
Lastly, the twist toward the end of this film is truly unexpected, and very unique. It puts a lot of prior actions into perspective, and helps move the story along rapidly after it's revealed.
Cons- Although Esther's character is slightly, if not completely deranged, I think sometimes the extremes of her actions come off as a little unbelievable at times. Of course, we all understand that she's pretty nuts, and crazy people tend to be unpredictable, but so much of the movie has a realistic tone to it, that her outburst sort of feel out of place.
The only other thing that I can complain about in regards to this film is the stupidity of Kate's other two children. Bribed to keep Esther's secrets from their parents, they both find themselves unable to tell their mother about Esther's behavior, even though it will clearly cause someone harm in the long run. Most of the time Esther is present for any opportunity in which they could rat her out, but the one time she is not, both of the kids wimp out. It becomes innately frustrating throughout the film, as it puts almost all of the protagonists into a stupid, helpless situation.
Wrap-up- Overall, this movie was very well done, with quite an unexpected ending. Thanks for the recommendation, Mom!
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Film Filter: Off - Straw Dogs
Film Filter: Off - Well, I had high hopes for this film. The previews made it out to be pretty epic and intelligent, but the movie itself fell far below said expectations.
Pros- You could argue that Kate Bosworth jogging braless is a pro. You could also say that James Marsden playing a nerdy intellect is also a pro, as it isn't a role I've seen him play in other films.
Outside of the main characters, I did like that there was a vast array of personalities in the film: the nerd, the jock, the douche-bag, the dumb person, the slutty one, the levelheaded one that gets killed first, etc. It sort of balanced out the film, but in ways it made it hard to follow because each character had such a strong personality that it was impossible to give each one their proper background story and still allow the plot to carry through at a bearable pace.
One of the things that was most intriguing about the previews (and motivated me to see the film) was its attempt at believability with the ways in which the "bad guys" are killed off. It appears as though the protagonists are all of a sudden in danger, not giving them much time to prepare to kill their antagonists and forcing them to be more creative in the ways they murder them.
Cons- I wasn't a huge fan of the relationship between the main characters. I'm not sure if it was a flaw in their on-screen chemistry, or poor direction, but it seemed very strained and not very believable. It, unfortunately, got worse as the movie continued which made it hard to enjoy because I found myself questioning their marriage more than I found myself rooting for them to survive.
The lack of common sense with Bosworth and Marsden was pretty astounding as well. This was particularly annoying due to the fact that the movie was trying so hard to be off the cuff, clever, and believable, but their stupidity sort of ruined it and got in the way.
Hands down the most frustrating thing about this movie is the LACK OF INFORMATION. There is little to nothing hinted at in this film that gives us any background information on ANY character, which is only so frustrating because the movie teases us with ambiguous past experiences, but doesn't go into any detail with any of them. Keeping in mind that this storyline was initially a book, then a movie, and now ANOTHER movie, I can only assume (and pray) that the book keeps these critical plot points that the movie deemed unnecessary,
And last but not least, there is a rape scene. Ick. I put this in the cons category because there was pretty much zero reason for them to include it in the film. I can tolerate these scenes when they move the story along by using the emotion of the scenario to fuel it, but this scene was not only uncomfortable to watch, but it was never (relevantly) brought up again in the plot. If you're going to use a rape scene, use it well, or don't use it at all.
Wrap up- Overall, this movie was a big let down. I'm hoping the book and first movie are better, but seeing this version has inhibited me from researching this story further due to its extreme sucky-ness.
Pros- You could argue that Kate Bosworth jogging braless is a pro. You could also say that James Marsden playing a nerdy intellect is also a pro, as it isn't a role I've seen him play in other films.
Outside of the main characters, I did like that there was a vast array of personalities in the film: the nerd, the jock, the douche-bag, the dumb person, the slutty one, the levelheaded one that gets killed first, etc. It sort of balanced out the film, but in ways it made it hard to follow because each character had such a strong personality that it was impossible to give each one their proper background story and still allow the plot to carry through at a bearable pace.
One of the things that was most intriguing about the previews (and motivated me to see the film) was its attempt at believability with the ways in which the "bad guys" are killed off. It appears as though the protagonists are all of a sudden in danger, not giving them much time to prepare to kill their antagonists and forcing them to be more creative in the ways they murder them.
Cons- I wasn't a huge fan of the relationship between the main characters. I'm not sure if it was a flaw in their on-screen chemistry, or poor direction, but it seemed very strained and not very believable. It, unfortunately, got worse as the movie continued which made it hard to enjoy because I found myself questioning their marriage more than I found myself rooting for them to survive.
The lack of common sense with Bosworth and Marsden was pretty astounding as well. This was particularly annoying due to the fact that the movie was trying so hard to be off the cuff, clever, and believable, but their stupidity sort of ruined it and got in the way.
Hands down the most frustrating thing about this movie is the LACK OF INFORMATION. There is little to nothing hinted at in this film that gives us any background information on ANY character, which is only so frustrating because the movie teases us with ambiguous past experiences, but doesn't go into any detail with any of them. Keeping in mind that this storyline was initially a book, then a movie, and now ANOTHER movie, I can only assume (and pray) that the book keeps these critical plot points that the movie deemed unnecessary,
And last but not least, there is a rape scene. Ick. I put this in the cons category because there was pretty much zero reason for them to include it in the film. I can tolerate these scenes when they move the story along by using the emotion of the scenario to fuel it, but this scene was not only uncomfortable to watch, but it was never (relevantly) brought up again in the plot. If you're going to use a rape scene, use it well, or don't use it at all.
Wrap up- Overall, this movie was a big let down. I'm hoping the book and first movie are better, but seeing this version has inhibited me from researching this story further due to its extreme sucky-ness.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Film Filter: Off- Final Destination 5
Film Filter: Off It's pretty much safe to say that you HAVE to see this film in 3-D. It definitely was not as terrible as its predecessor, and it has a very interesting ending.
Pros- For starters, the acting was much better in this film than in the one prior. The characters have a lot more interaction with each other, other than dying, than in most of the films.
Moving on to the 3-D aspect: if you're going to watch a movie in 3-D for entertainment value, this one is not a bad choice. Good 3-D movies either subtly enhance the film by working in the background, or overtly enhance the film by over-using the effect. This film is clearly the latter, but it works. The introduction was probably the coolest part in terms of 3-D effects, but the movie does a good job of inserting them without fail into most death scenes.
I liked that this film took a slightly different approach to the equation of cheating death. Instead of just switching the order, apparently you can take someone else's life and it will substitute the one you were supposed to give. I think this is a pretty clever concept, although not unique. White Noise: 2 also jumped on this bandwagon idea, but I have to say that it makes the plot more interesting due to the moral dilemmas that ensue.
The ending was by far the biggest redeeming quality of this film. I don't want to give too much away, but I will say my prior complaint of having "Final Destination 5" follow "THE Final Destination" is now null and void.
Cons- Despite the fact that I liked the twist regarding killing someone else to save yourself, there were some surrounding issues that plagued this concept. First off, the way it was brought up was pretty abrupt. The coroner from the first film just up and tells them that that's how they can cheat death. Wow, way to make them work for it. He didn't even give them a few guesses or anything, just blurted it right out. Not that any of them would have been intelligent enough to have figured it out on their own, but still. Secondly, once the characters catch wind of this, one of them goes bananas and tries to start killing one of his friends. I just find that a tad unrealistic. I mean, if you're going to kill someone find a bad guy, or a random person, but don't murder your friend!
Okay, I can't keep it in any longer, so ***SPOILER ALERT*** The coroner up and announces to the remaining victims that they can kill someone to get out of the arrangement. Lo and behold, we find out at the end of the film that this movie is actually a prequel to the original Final Destination, which begs the question: Why didn't anyone in the other 4 films figure it out?! Especially if creepy coroner-man blurted it out to the first group...why couldn't he just tell Devon Sawa too?
Wrap up- Not a bad movie, if you see it in 3-D. Sorry I ruined the ending for you, but it still might be worth...eh, probably not.
Pros- For starters, the acting was much better in this film than in the one prior. The characters have a lot more interaction with each other, other than dying, than in most of the films.
Moving on to the 3-D aspect: if you're going to watch a movie in 3-D for entertainment value, this one is not a bad choice. Good 3-D movies either subtly enhance the film by working in the background, or overtly enhance the film by over-using the effect. This film is clearly the latter, but it works. The introduction was probably the coolest part in terms of 3-D effects, but the movie does a good job of inserting them without fail into most death scenes.
I liked that this film took a slightly different approach to the equation of cheating death. Instead of just switching the order, apparently you can take someone else's life and it will substitute the one you were supposed to give. I think this is a pretty clever concept, although not unique. White Noise: 2 also jumped on this bandwagon idea, but I have to say that it makes the plot more interesting due to the moral dilemmas that ensue.
The ending was by far the biggest redeeming quality of this film. I don't want to give too much away, but I will say my prior complaint of having "Final Destination 5" follow "THE Final Destination" is now null and void.
Cons- Despite the fact that I liked the twist regarding killing someone else to save yourself, there were some surrounding issues that plagued this concept. First off, the way it was brought up was pretty abrupt. The coroner from the first film just up and tells them that that's how they can cheat death. Wow, way to make them work for it. He didn't even give them a few guesses or anything, just blurted it right out. Not that any of them would have been intelligent enough to have figured it out on their own, but still. Secondly, once the characters catch wind of this, one of them goes bananas and tries to start killing one of his friends. I just find that a tad unrealistic. I mean, if you're going to kill someone find a bad guy, or a random person, but don't murder your friend!
Okay, I can't keep it in any longer, so ***SPOILER ALERT*** The coroner up and announces to the remaining victims that they can kill someone to get out of the arrangement. Lo and behold, we find out at the end of the film that this movie is actually a prequel to the original Final Destination, which begs the question: Why didn't anyone in the other 4 films figure it out?! Especially if creepy coroner-man blurted it out to the first group...why couldn't he just tell Devon Sawa too?
Wrap up- Not a bad movie, if you see it in 3-D. Sorry I ruined the ending for you, but it still might be worth...eh, probably not.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Film Filter: Off- The Last Exorcism
Film Filter: Off- Having seen several films regarding exorcisms (as they happen to fit into my favorite, self generated genre of theological thrillers) I have to say this film went in a COMPLETELY different direction than I had expected it to.
Pros- It's a little tougher to dissect this film because of the nature of how it was meant to be perceived. As a documentary style film, the plot was slightly covered up by the necessity to remain true to a live filming. That being said, I have to commend the entire cast on making the film truly feel like a documentary. Whoever cast the film did a nice job of selecting actors that were lesser known to assist in the genuine feel of the film.
I found it refreshing that the film took a very different angle on the idea of exorcisms. Instead of a devout priest, or even an uncertain one, struggling to rid demons from a body for the greater good of the possessed's soul, this minister had a different approach. Instead, a minister struggling internally with his beliefs and faith seeks to prove that exorcisms are a mental disorder and can simply be cured with a "mind over matter" approach. The film then goes through the motions of his hoaxes and showmanship during the fake exorcism, the events that ensue, and his beliefs and opinions ultimately being questioned.
Throughout the process the viewer will find a very tongue-in-cheek sense of humor from the minister, as he is convinced that exorcisms are fake and ultimately mocks them. It ends up frequently having a bit more comedic and realistic feel than it does a spiritual one, which is refreshing for a film that is rooted in a concept that is very spiritual.
Cons- Coming with the territory of a documentary style filming is the inability to answer some questions. This was particularly frustrating towards the end of the film. As the film is attempting to be in real time, with one of the characters of the film portraying the camera person, we can only view what is going on from their perspective. Once action picks up and characters are running and/or dying, it becomes difficult to decipher the plot in the midst of the chaos.
I also thought it was a little ignorant of the priest to assume that the possessed girl, Nell, was relieved of the demons just based off of what she was saying. I thought it was painfully obvious that she was still under possession, mainly because she was referring to herself in the third person perspective. A-duh?
Wrap up- This movie can be summed up in one word: unexpected. It's really quite interesting, but I would really recommend it to those who have seen several exorcism oriented films, as it will probably make more sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)