Film Filter: Off - I was prompted to see this film by a friend, otherwise I probably wouldn't have gone to watch it. I was pleasantly surprised, seeing as how it follows a very trendy (and often overused) plot-line.
Pros- I definitely have to give props to the cast, as everyone in the film did a really good job of making sure that their characters felt real. The young girl who is featured in the film stood out in particular, as she was the main focus. It's very easy to lose pity for a multi dimensional character when they are poorly played, but she did an excellent job of evoking pity when she was normal, and looking scary as hell when she was possessed.
I thought the music was really creative and well done. Some reviews state that the ominous, low piano transition music was overdone, but I disagree. I liked the simplicity of it, and I think that it worked. It was a nice distraction from the predictable minor orchestral scores you hear too often that allude to distress as soon as they stop or climax.
This movie put a little bit of a twist on possession, as they didn't pursue the Roman Catholic religion. It was, instead, a Jewish family. It was interesting not only because it was unique, but because there was a lot of new information presented in regards to the Jewish faith and its beliefs, which is an untapped resource in regards to possession films. It allowed the film to be successful in all the ways that other exorcism films are, but at the same time set itself apart. Very smart thinking.
Cons- You could almost consider it a pro, but this was the first movie I can recall seeing recently that forced me to actively keep it out of my mind as I went to bed that evening. I'm far beyond the nightmares-from-scary-movies phase, but some things you just can't help being spooked about. Demons, ghosts, and other non-tangible entities are among that for me, thus my fascination with theological thrillers.
Ummm, I'm just going to come right out and say it: the polish spirit-demon-thing looked like a dying Lord Voldemort from the last Harry Potter movie. While we're talking about it, it baffles me to no end how the mother was able to see the face of the spirit inside the girl during the MRI that the she had. That was just a little too tangible for my mind to wrap around.
While we're talking about frustrating, I found it odd that the husband didn't just tell the wife what he suspected. It was obvious that they still cared for each other, so she probably would have at least listened to what he had to say. Frustrating again was the fact that he didn't leave the basketball practice to go see his daughter perform. Not that it was a critical plot point in the story, but the assistant coach is even reminding him about it...better late than never, right?
Wrap up- This is a really good movie. If you want to get a little spooked at the movies, along with an interesting story, I would highly recommend it.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Film Filter: Off - Madison County
Film Filter: Off- The cover of this film has a picture of a serial killer wearing a pig mask...need I further defend my decision?
Pros- Okay, so this movie is definitely not as terrible as I thought it was going to be. It's certainly not good, but it's something that most people could probably tolerate.
One of the things that was enjoyable about the film was its believability in regards to the character interactions. Sure, there was the once in awhile stereotypical statement, but for the most part the characters co-existed with each other in a manner that made sense.
Another thing that was a slight surprise was the independence of the male lead character to not follow all of the stereotypical rules. When a creepy guy in a truck comes to aid you by the side of the road and offers a "short-cut" to their destination, it's usually not a great idea to listen to him. Kudos, James. Kudos.
On a side note, 96% of the film is in broad daylight. Thinking outside of the box...I like it.
Cons- As with most slasher flicks, there is a massive amount of predictable, stupid situations that the characters could have avoided had they had a collective IQ higher than the Madison County speed limit.
Where shall I begin? The idiocy doesn't really ensue until Will takes a photo in the woods and sees someone creepin' in the shrubs. Hey, you're in the forest, and this is crazy: you saw a creeper...tell someone, maybe? Or not. Maybe if others had known there was someone following them, they would have been more apt to make intelligent decisions.
Next is the splitting up. I can slightly see their perspective in that they weren't really in danger when they started to split up, but there's a general rule of thumb that strength in numbers is better than getting brutally murdered. Just sayin'. Not only do they split into smaller groups, but once they're in groups of twos, they split even further to one on one. It's like a mitosis of retardation.
So there are two chicks in this movie...one who understands the principles of mass preservation, and one who does not. Fortunately for the one who does not, her ass gets saved by the smart one who distracts the little piggy when he gets too close to the moron. When moron girl realizes she's safe, she goes to follow him when she sees her smart friend injured and about to be hacked up. So what does she do?
a) dumb bitch tires to tackle him from behind, then picks up his axe and slices him up like bacon
b) dumb bitch calls for him to follow her like her friend did, to give her a chance to run away
c) dumb bitch tries to save her friend by picking her up and carrying her through the woods
d) dumb bitch acts like a dumb bitch and just stands there
Yeah, you guessed it. D. *sigh* I'm not even going to elaborate because it's too frustrating.
Wrap up- As I mentioned, this movie is not as awful as I initially expected. That being said, it's frustrating as hell. However, most of the pros outweigh the cons (at least to the degree where I don't consistently feel like I wish I were the one dying so I wouldn't have to suffer throughout the rest of the film).
Pros- Okay, so this movie is definitely not as terrible as I thought it was going to be. It's certainly not good, but it's something that most people could probably tolerate.
One of the things that was enjoyable about the film was its believability in regards to the character interactions. Sure, there was the once in awhile stereotypical statement, but for the most part the characters co-existed with each other in a manner that made sense.
Another thing that was a slight surprise was the independence of the male lead character to not follow all of the stereotypical rules. When a creepy guy in a truck comes to aid you by the side of the road and offers a "short-cut" to their destination, it's usually not a great idea to listen to him. Kudos, James. Kudos.
On a side note, 96% of the film is in broad daylight. Thinking outside of the box...I like it.
Cons- As with most slasher flicks, there is a massive amount of predictable, stupid situations that the characters could have avoided had they had a collective IQ higher than the Madison County speed limit.
Where shall I begin? The idiocy doesn't really ensue until Will takes a photo in the woods and sees someone creepin' in the shrubs. Hey, you're in the forest, and this is crazy: you saw a creeper...tell someone, maybe? Or not. Maybe if others had known there was someone following them, they would have been more apt to make intelligent decisions.
Next is the splitting up. I can slightly see their perspective in that they weren't really in danger when they started to split up, but there's a general rule of thumb that strength in numbers is better than getting brutally murdered. Just sayin'. Not only do they split into smaller groups, but once they're in groups of twos, they split even further to one on one. It's like a mitosis of retardation.
So there are two chicks in this movie...one who understands the principles of mass preservation, and one who does not. Fortunately for the one who does not, her ass gets saved by the smart one who distracts the little piggy when he gets too close to the moron. When moron girl realizes she's safe, she goes to follow him when she sees her smart friend injured and about to be hacked up. So what does she do?
a) dumb bitch tires to tackle him from behind, then picks up his axe and slices him up like bacon
b) dumb bitch calls for him to follow her like her friend did, to give her a chance to run away
c) dumb bitch tries to save her friend by picking her up and carrying her through the woods
d) dumb bitch acts like a dumb bitch and just stands there
Yeah, you guessed it. D. *sigh* I'm not even going to elaborate because it's too frustrating.
Wrap up- As I mentioned, this movie is not as awful as I initially expected. That being said, it's frustrating as hell. However, most of the pros outweigh the cons (at least to the degree where I don't consistently feel like I wish I were the one dying so I wouldn't have to suffer throughout the rest of the film).
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Film Filter: Off - The Mothman Prophecies
Film Filter: Off - I watched this film for the first time a long while ago with a good friend, and to be honest, it scared the bejeezus out of me. After recently re-watching it, it still spooked me a little, but I do have a different view of it as an adult from that of when I was a teenager.
Pros- First off, I have yet to see a movie starring Richard Gere where he does not do a commendable job with his role. Maybe that means he's a great actor, or maybe that means I haven't seen enough Richard Gere films, but he definitely pulls his weight in this film, as he is present in nearly every scene from beginning to end.
If you've read any of my other posts, you'll understand that I am fascinated with symbolism. Hidden graphics, colors, underlying themes and the like are intriguing to me, as it presents another level of depth to the film. This movie is by no means void of symbolism, which is one of the reasons why I enjoy it.
This next piece is, like many things in my reviews, a personal opinion. Although scary movies that contain blood, gore, and creatures popping out for cheap scares are sometimes good and often scary, I find myself more drawn to subdued fear that is susceptible to actually occurring. With my self-created genre of theological thrillers, the horror is not as deep with the actual film as it is with the thought process of the events occurring in the film actually happening. Most of us have succumbed to the fact that a masked murderer wearing a pig faced mask isn't going to be hiding in our garage, but the probability of demons, possession, ghosts, spirits and supernatural forces are something that I think could be more of a distinct possibility. Maybe that's just me, but it usually ends up scaring me more, because it falls into the category of the unknown, and what's scarier than something that you have no control over?
The cinematography was great, especially when showing perspective changes and demonstrating the eerie scenery in many of the scenes.
Cons- One of the major things that is wrong with this film that I started to see more recently is its inability to commit to a specific content. If I were to describe the film to you, it would more or less be a series of short stories or events pertaining to the Mothman, of which Richard Gere's character (John Klein) is a common link to. The focus of the film in that regard, is often unclear.
One of the other things about this movie that sort of confuses me is the ability for this supernatural mothman to have people who are dead show up in a tangible form. I can sort of understand the hearing of the deceased person's voice, as that can be something that could be manufactured by some outside force, but there's a big stretch between that and seeing said dead person walking the streets of West Virginia. That is pushing it, in my opinion.
Wrap up- Overall, I still enjoy this movie. Is it, at times, unrealistic and unfocused? Yes, but I think the pros outweigh the cons in this instance.
Pros- First off, I have yet to see a movie starring Richard Gere where he does not do a commendable job with his role. Maybe that means he's a great actor, or maybe that means I haven't seen enough Richard Gere films, but he definitely pulls his weight in this film, as he is present in nearly every scene from beginning to end.
If you've read any of my other posts, you'll understand that I am fascinated with symbolism. Hidden graphics, colors, underlying themes and the like are intriguing to me, as it presents another level of depth to the film. This movie is by no means void of symbolism, which is one of the reasons why I enjoy it.
This next piece is, like many things in my reviews, a personal opinion. Although scary movies that contain blood, gore, and creatures popping out for cheap scares are sometimes good and often scary, I find myself more drawn to subdued fear that is susceptible to actually occurring. With my self-created genre of theological thrillers, the horror is not as deep with the actual film as it is with the thought process of the events occurring in the film actually happening. Most of us have succumbed to the fact that a masked murderer wearing a pig faced mask isn't going to be hiding in our garage, but the probability of demons, possession, ghosts, spirits and supernatural forces are something that I think could be more of a distinct possibility. Maybe that's just me, but it usually ends up scaring me more, because it falls into the category of the unknown, and what's scarier than something that you have no control over?
The cinematography was great, especially when showing perspective changes and demonstrating the eerie scenery in many of the scenes.
Cons- One of the major things that is wrong with this film that I started to see more recently is its inability to commit to a specific content. If I were to describe the film to you, it would more or less be a series of short stories or events pertaining to the Mothman, of which Richard Gere's character (John Klein) is a common link to. The focus of the film in that regard, is often unclear.
One of the other things about this movie that sort of confuses me is the ability for this supernatural mothman to have people who are dead show up in a tangible form. I can sort of understand the hearing of the deceased person's voice, as that can be something that could be manufactured by some outside force, but there's a big stretch between that and seeing said dead person walking the streets of West Virginia. That is pushing it, in my opinion.
Wrap up- Overall, I still enjoy this movie. Is it, at times, unrealistic and unfocused? Yes, but I think the pros outweigh the cons in this instance.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Film Filter: Off - Silent House
Film Filter: Off - This was one of those films that had a very vague synopsis, so it was pretty impossible to categorize off the bat. After watching the film though, it's clear that although the movie is indeed a suspenseful horror film, there is a much deeper meaning and intent behind it.
Pros- This film definitely has a lot going for it. I will say that it is impossible to make this type of film work without having a strong lead, which Sarah (Elizabeth Olsen) really delivered. She was actually going about escape and hiding in an intellectual way, rather than the stereotypical running and screaming.
This movie had a relatively small cast- about five characters total. The cast did a very good job of making dialogue and interactions very believable, especially in the beginning. It was easy to get involved with the characters, as they were acting like normal human beings, and felt real.
Although this movie had a stereotypical setting of an abandoned house with no electricity and no cell phone reception, the way they brought it up was more believable than I would have thought.
Doing this film in one, single shot with no cuts must have been grueling. The movie itself was good enough that you really didn't notice, but if you re-watch a scene or two and think about the job of the camera man and the actors...it's pretty mind-blowing.
I certainly have my feelings about a scene or two towards the end of the film, but I thought where the film ended up in terms of content was pretty brilliant. Did I think the evolution from beginning to end was perfectly executed? Absolutely not. In the end, though, the directors and screenwriter made a successful scary movie about something real, and something thought provoking. Kudos.
Cons- While the single action shot was really cool and very well done, it made it hard to see things sometimes, and the directors themselves even stated that there was a symbolic item in the background of a scene that didn't get seen because of it. It's also hard to, from an analytical standpoint, figure out the perspective of the film. Is it third person, since Sarah is being seen on screen so much? Is it first person, since we get to see things from her perspective at times? It's a bit confusing to me, and while I'm glad they could make the film work in one shot (and am not sure if they could have maintained a single perspective with that goal in mind) it was annoying at times.
There was WAY too much time spent on Sarah running and hiding from creepy people in her house. There was also a lot of time spent on her trying to break out. You may be thinking, "Well, Corri, it is a movie about intruders, after all. That's what people do when strangers are in their house." Yeah, I know, but pick an option. Spend all your efforts on either escaping, or hiding and waiting them out. Even though she wasn't an idiot about either, doing both just wastes time, and limits your commitment to one or the other. Plus it's like watching paint dry to the audience.
There is this one scene that I just don't get. Everything in the film seems so realistic, but in one bathroom shot she is seeing weird people in the tub and a toilet on the wall spewing blood. I think I know why the scene was so abstract, but to me it took away from the film's attempt to feel real.
Wrap up- Overall, I would highly recommend this film. It is very different from what you will ordinarily get from a scary movie, and the cast does a great job. Plus, it's based (veeeerrrrrry loosely) on true events.
Pros- This film definitely has a lot going for it. I will say that it is impossible to make this type of film work without having a strong lead, which Sarah (Elizabeth Olsen) really delivered. She was actually going about escape and hiding in an intellectual way, rather than the stereotypical running and screaming.
This movie had a relatively small cast- about five characters total. The cast did a very good job of making dialogue and interactions very believable, especially in the beginning. It was easy to get involved with the characters, as they were acting like normal human beings, and felt real.
Although this movie had a stereotypical setting of an abandoned house with no electricity and no cell phone reception, the way they brought it up was more believable than I would have thought.
Doing this film in one, single shot with no cuts must have been grueling. The movie itself was good enough that you really didn't notice, but if you re-watch a scene or two and think about the job of the camera man and the actors...it's pretty mind-blowing.
I certainly have my feelings about a scene or two towards the end of the film, but I thought where the film ended up in terms of content was pretty brilliant. Did I think the evolution from beginning to end was perfectly executed? Absolutely not. In the end, though, the directors and screenwriter made a successful scary movie about something real, and something thought provoking. Kudos.
Cons- While the single action shot was really cool and very well done, it made it hard to see things sometimes, and the directors themselves even stated that there was a symbolic item in the background of a scene that didn't get seen because of it. It's also hard to, from an analytical standpoint, figure out the perspective of the film. Is it third person, since Sarah is being seen on screen so much? Is it first person, since we get to see things from her perspective at times? It's a bit confusing to me, and while I'm glad they could make the film work in one shot (and am not sure if they could have maintained a single perspective with that goal in mind) it was annoying at times.
There was WAY too much time spent on Sarah running and hiding from creepy people in her house. There was also a lot of time spent on her trying to break out. You may be thinking, "Well, Corri, it is a movie about intruders, after all. That's what people do when strangers are in their house." Yeah, I know, but pick an option. Spend all your efforts on either escaping, or hiding and waiting them out. Even though she wasn't an idiot about either, doing both just wastes time, and limits your commitment to one or the other. Plus it's like watching paint dry to the audience.
There is this one scene that I just don't get. Everything in the film seems so realistic, but in one bathroom shot she is seeing weird people in the tub and a toilet on the wall spewing blood. I think I know why the scene was so abstract, but to me it took away from the film's attempt to feel real.
Wrap up- Overall, I would highly recommend this film. It is very different from what you will ordinarily get from a scary movie, and the cast does a great job. Plus, it's based (veeeerrrrrry loosely) on true events.
Monday, August 20, 2012
Film Filter: Off - The Human Centipede
Film Filter: Off- I decided to watch this film based
upon the fact that I seemed to keep hearing about it everywhere I turned. It sounded like it was an extremely
different film, so I ventured forth.
Pros- I
will say, for reasons you will probably assume or figure out shortly, this film
was pretty captivating. As soon as
you pressed play, you were pretty much committed until the ending.
In terms of characters, it was a little hard for me to
decide if I liked them or not.
Upon actually thinking about the situations they were placed in I
decided that, like it or not, it was hard not to get emotionally invested in
some of them. Despite the fact
that the two leading ladies were stereotypically idiotic, most of the
characters in the film were played as well as they could have been in their
retrospective circumstances.
Cons- The
first thing that jumped out at me as ridiculous was the very opening of the
movie. Two stupid girls are vacationing
in Europe and decide to meet up with a stranger at a party. They get lost in their car, run into a
ditch and pop their tire, and have no cellular reception (this is a very unique
plot so far). Upon realizing that
their car “broke down” (seriously?
It’s a flat tire…it didn’t break down, dumbass) they decide to just sit
and wait it out for a bit, all the while freaking out and trying to figure out
what their next course of action will be.
They decide to walk. In the
woods. At night. In the middle of nowhere. For real? If it were that severe of a life or death circumstance,
couldn’t they just…drive on three wheels until they reached civilization? Paying for a busted rental car sucks,
but it’s definitely second rate punishment to rape, death, or whatever they are
about to waltz into. Oh, and neither
of them know how to change a tire, obviously. All these girls really need is a life skills 101 class, but
since the two of them only have an ounce of common sense between the two of
them, their fate is sealed.
Ok, on to the gritty part of the story. Although the maniacal German doctor was
actually played pretty well, it was pseudo annoying that he didn’t have any
kind of back-story. We clearly
understand that the guy is nuts, but it would have been kind of empathetic to
know why.
In terms of the two leading ladies, I feel as though one of them was enough of a fighter to try to get out of the situation, while the other one was sort of lethargic about it. While begging and pleading seem like an instinctive option, it’s pretty clear that if you’re in the basement torture chamber of a mad surgeon, he’s probably not going to just release you because he feels bad. (In fact, it’s pretty safe to say that he really doesn’t feel anything close to a human emotion.) The smart girl did end up escaping, but then felt bad so she went back to save her dumb friend. That’s a tough moral dilemma…I feel like if she had continued escaping and hadn’t gone back, she could have gotten the proper authorities to have stopped this psycho, which would have helped her unconscious friend more than pseudo dragging her outside and getting them both caught. That may make me seem heartless, but you have to play to your strengths. I’m a fast runner, and time is of the essence when you’re left alone in a torture chamber. If you’re waking from being unconscious, you also have no idea how long it has been since the doctor was last present. So, to then try to escape and drag your half-comatose friend along with you is just not playing the odds. Plus, it’s going to piss off Dr. Crazy.
In terms of the two leading ladies, I feel as though one of them was enough of a fighter to try to get out of the situation, while the other one was sort of lethargic about it. While begging and pleading seem like an instinctive option, it’s pretty clear that if you’re in the basement torture chamber of a mad surgeon, he’s probably not going to just release you because he feels bad. (In fact, it’s pretty safe to say that he really doesn’t feel anything close to a human emotion.) The smart girl did end up escaping, but then felt bad so she went back to save her dumb friend. That’s a tough moral dilemma…I feel like if she had continued escaping and hadn’t gone back, she could have gotten the proper authorities to have stopped this psycho, which would have helped her unconscious friend more than pseudo dragging her outside and getting them both caught. That may make me seem heartless, but you have to play to your strengths. I’m a fast runner, and time is of the essence when you’re left alone in a torture chamber. If you’re waking from being unconscious, you also have no idea how long it has been since the doctor was last present. So, to then try to escape and drag your half-comatose friend along with you is just not playing the odds. Plus, it’s going to piss off Dr. Crazy.
Oh, and the two detectives are STUPID. If you’re visiting a person you suspect
of kidnapping and possibly murder, don’t drink their roofie water. And, when you come back with a proper
search warrant, don’t stupidly burst into a room and just stand there. There’s a gun-holding, door-kicking,
flashlight-wielding protocol that even I know
of from watching umpteen police dramas, and if you don’t follow it, you’ll get
shot. Der.
Wrap up- Everything else about the movie is pretty
straightforward and gross. If you
want details, it’s something that you’re really going to have to watch, because
I don’t have the mental endurance to be able to recreate it via blog. Overall, because of its disgust level,
it’s hard to take your eyes off of the screen, and you really want to know what happens to the victims, so you’re pretty
much stuck until the credits. Does
the fact that you’re enticed to watch it from beginning to end make it a good
movie? No, and it’s still gross as
hell, but if you’re making a bucket list you may want to add watching this film
to it. I can guarantee it’s unlike
anything else you’ve ever seen.
Friday, July 13, 2012
Film Filter: Off - Fallen
Film Filter: Off Again, I reviewed one of my favorite movies, partially due to the fact that this falls into my made-up genre of "Theological Thrillers". This film is also great because it is so much more than it seems on the surface; it's the definition of a diamond in the rough.
Pros- Having Denzel as the leading man really enhances just about any film. He does a fantastic job, as Denzel always does, and it doesn't hurt that the story line is very good.
To go off of that, the plot (and evolution of said plot) plays a very important part in several aspects of the film. There are MANY small roles, for example, that play big parts in the evolution of this story, and the directors did a good job of making that happen smoothly. The narration is also a very important part of the story, and if you've watched the movie more than once you truly appreciate it that much more.
In terms of characters, there were a few big actors featured in this film. I'd have to say, with the exception of some, the smaller characters are what really push this film out of the great and into excellent category. In order for the film to work properly, seemingly innocent people need to sporadically take on a drastic, malevolent personality change. They selected those individuals quite well, and they all executed their role with a creepy believability, along with a smooth transition back to normalcy.
The entire situation involving Denzel's character, Detective John Hobbes, is expertly unfolded. As he is antagonized, it little by little becomes harassment, then further unveils to threats and being set-up. While this interesting plot is happening on the surface, there is also a much darker, ancient story happening that intertwines with it. Pairing that with sprinklings of past circumstances in the precinct, and specific details regarding the murders, this story becomes a tri-level tale of good vs. evil.
Last, but never least, is the fantastic ending. I don't really want to give it away, but it is definitely unexpected, and makes the whole movie that much deeper.
Cons- I don't really have any, other than one thing that is a slight annoyance more than a con. Is John Hobbes' brother slow? I can't really tell. At some points, I think it's obvious that he is, and at other times I wonder if he's just supposed to be a quirky character.
Wrap up- This film is a must see for the Theological Thriller fan. It really is a one-of-a-kind film.
Pros- Having Denzel as the leading man really enhances just about any film. He does a fantastic job, as Denzel always does, and it doesn't hurt that the story line is very good.
To go off of that, the plot (and evolution of said plot) plays a very important part in several aspects of the film. There are MANY small roles, for example, that play big parts in the evolution of this story, and the directors did a good job of making that happen smoothly. The narration is also a very important part of the story, and if you've watched the movie more than once you truly appreciate it that much more.
In terms of characters, there were a few big actors featured in this film. I'd have to say, with the exception of some, the smaller characters are what really push this film out of the great and into excellent category. In order for the film to work properly, seemingly innocent people need to sporadically take on a drastic, malevolent personality change. They selected those individuals quite well, and they all executed their role with a creepy believability, along with a smooth transition back to normalcy.
The entire situation involving Denzel's character, Detective John Hobbes, is expertly unfolded. As he is antagonized, it little by little becomes harassment, then further unveils to threats and being set-up. While this interesting plot is happening on the surface, there is also a much darker, ancient story happening that intertwines with it. Pairing that with sprinklings of past circumstances in the precinct, and specific details regarding the murders, this story becomes a tri-level tale of good vs. evil.
Last, but never least, is the fantastic ending. I don't really want to give it away, but it is definitely unexpected, and makes the whole movie that much deeper.
Cons- I don't really have any, other than one thing that is a slight annoyance more than a con. Is John Hobbes' brother slow? I can't really tell. At some points, I think it's obvious that he is, and at other times I wonder if he's just supposed to be a quirky character.
Wrap up- This film is a must see for the Theological Thriller fan. It really is a one-of-a-kind film.
Film Filter: Off - Primal Fear
Film Filter: Off- I remember stumbling across this film when I was about 14 or 15 years old while my mom was watching it. I caught it about half way through, and it has since been one of my all time favorite movies, along with being the film that brought Edward Norton's acting prowess to my attention.
Pros- The cast in this film did a spectacular job delivering the roles they were given, particularly Norton. I'm a firm believer that, being his first big film, this is the movie that jump-started his career. Others may argue that it was Fight Club, but I counter that he never would have gotten that role if he had not first played Aaron Stampler in this film.
The story is interesting, interwoven, and impeccably played out. Although the movie can't take credit for that, since it was a book first, I would argue that this movie does the book justice. After I read it, I'll let you know.
By far and away the best part of this film is the way it ends. I can't say anything more or I'll spoil it, but it's what makes this film my favorite.
Cons- Keeping in mind that this movie is from the mid nineties, the following are more or less idiosyncrasies of the era rather than actual complaints.
The chase scene music is like the Seinfeld theme song meets a faulty electronic drum machine. Ick.
Some of the dialogue is a little cheesy, it probably worked within the confines of the book, but the movie didn't allow it to transition smoothly.
Wrap up- Overall, this movie needs to be seen if you haven't already done so. I mean, even the idiots on Netflix rated it 5 stars. If you like crime thrillers, and if you like Edward Norton, this is a must-see.
Pros- The cast in this film did a spectacular job delivering the roles they were given, particularly Norton. I'm a firm believer that, being his first big film, this is the movie that jump-started his career. Others may argue that it was Fight Club, but I counter that he never would have gotten that role if he had not first played Aaron Stampler in this film.
The story is interesting, interwoven, and impeccably played out. Although the movie can't take credit for that, since it was a book first, I would argue that this movie does the book justice. After I read it, I'll let you know.
By far and away the best part of this film is the way it ends. I can't say anything more or I'll spoil it, but it's what makes this film my favorite.
Cons- Keeping in mind that this movie is from the mid nineties, the following are more or less idiosyncrasies of the era rather than actual complaints.
The chase scene music is like the Seinfeld theme song meets a faulty electronic drum machine. Ick.
Some of the dialogue is a little cheesy, it probably worked within the confines of the book, but the movie didn't allow it to transition smoothly.
Wrap up- Overall, this movie needs to be seen if you haven't already done so. I mean, even the idiots on Netflix rated it 5 stars. If you like crime thrillers, and if you like Edward Norton, this is a must-see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)