Film Filter: Off - Insidious: Chapter 2

Film Filter: Off-  Hands down this was one of my most anticipated views of 2013/2014.  After having seen the original a few years back, I was definitely intrigued.  As soon as news of the sequel came out I investigated, and was pumped to finally be able to see it.

Pros- The movie did a fantastic job of picking up right where its predecessor left off.  It also went back quite a bit and touched upon things that happened in the original, so those that hadn't seen it (or hadn't seen it in awhile) weren't totally left in the dark.
  In addition to the constant revisitation of Insidious, this one also took some of the original's story and expanded upon it, and the characters, to roll the storyline into one nice, neat little package.  You know by now, I hope, how much I hate loose ends, so you can probably sense my appreciation.
   One thing I liked about watching this second film (of at least a trilogy, based upon the ending) is that it took what the first movie did well and worked with that, while also attempting to learn from the things that didn't work.  If you recall in my posting of Insidious (my first EVER blog on this site, for the record) two of my pet peeves were the crazy spirit-makeup, and the over-exposure of the demon that was stalking the family.  Both of these minor annoyances got fixed in the sequel, so thanks producers and directors!  Maybe they read my blog X-)
   There was also a god use of pop out moments every now and then, which were deemed pretty effective.

Cons- Unfortunately, all of the good things mentioned above are kind of where it all ends.  My first beef: why is Renai so "okay" with the fact that her husband isn't her husband?  I mean, she knows, right?  Yet she goes through the first third of the movie totally oblivious and doesn't seem to realize her husband is possessed until it is brought to her attention.  Did she not see the end of the first movie?  'Cuz I did, and it pretty clearly showed her taking a photo of Josh to reveal none other than the creepy old woman on the camera screen.  And she disregards this information?  Or we're led to believe she wasn't convinced enough?  I'm not buying it.
   A lot of the acting, dialogue, and character interactions in this film feel very labored.  I know what you're thinking: "This movie isn't supposed to be good at those things, it's a horror flick."  You may have a point, but I like to call a spade a spade, and if they didn't want to have solid dialogue and characterizations, they shouldn't have included so much of them.  Some of it is really painful to watch.
   Despite the fact that the group of people I was watching the movie with and I came up with a plausible rationale, it didn't quite make sense to me that destroying Parker's mother would successfully rid Josh of Parker's spiritual influence.  I mean, she was definitely controlling him, but he was his own tangible person, and thus, his own spirit.  That spiritual connection, or spiritual separation to be more specific, didn't quite add up to me.  Plus...last time I checked, she was already dead.  How did Elise kill her, again?
   There were also several unbelievable circumstances, such as Josh's body being weakened by the spirit  (makes sense) but then also being able to take a wrench to the head about five or six times without getting knocked out (not so much).  Or bloodied.  Or bruised even.  What?  He's still flesh and blood, so how was he able to escape from that ordeal unscathed?  Beats me.  Haha.  Get it?
   Lastly, the ending.  Why?  It's a new house, a new family, and new spirits, probably.  Although the actual scene wasn't badly done, the content and context made little to no difference to us as audience members.  We have no vested interest in any of these characters, not to mention we don't even know who they are.  I get that they are opening it up for a third movie, but at least try to tie it in to something the audience can relate to.

Wrap up- The first time I saw the initial movie, I loved it.  The second time, I didn't enjoy it quite as much and found more fault with it.  I don't feel that this sequel even comes close to being as good as the original, but I commend them for making it.  Could it have been done better?  Absolutely, but if you're looking for a scary movie that elaborates on a pretty unique idea, this isn't the worst pick.

HOME

Film Filter: Off - The Prophecy

Film Filter: Off- After I watched The Ninth Gate, The Prophecy was suggested to me.  Y'all know I can't turn down a theological thriller, so I obliged.

Pros- I think this movie actually had a lot going for it.  The cast was pretty solid, the acting wasn't too bad, and it had a unique plot.  Well, maybe an overused plot that had some minor changes, but those changes were enough to set it apart from similar films.
   Christopher Walken was particularly interesting in this film, despite the fact that he overuses the term "talking monkeys" quite a bit.  I'm sure a drinking game can be found somewhere in there...  I also enjoyed Viggo Mortensen as Satan/Lucifer.  Although not on film for a huge portion of the movie, his part was critical and I thought he did it justice.  I'm also a big Elias Koteas fan, so I was glad he was the protagonist.
   I thought it interesting and effective that there is a very early-on twist regarding the Angel Simon and his character's disposition.  It's interesting to me when all signs point toward a character being one way, when they actually aren't.  He also wasn't in a major enough role to see it coming, which made it even more effective.

Cons- I'm going to start with my biggest beef with this film, and then lighten up as I go.  I don't understand why there is a need to portray the Angel Gabriel as someone out to rebel against God.  Prove me wrong if you can, but in my research there is no proof to corroborate this story, and it is very irritating to me for a big reason: it is taking a well-known character and changing its pre-determined story.  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fiction, and I'm also not opposed to changing and challenging what has already been determined, but in this case it just doesn't work for me.  Case in point: Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.  Lincoln (probably) didn't hunt vampires, but for the sake of the fictional story, we can buy into it.  Why?  Lincoln still dies at the end (sort of), thus the plausibility remains intact.  It's a fictional story, about a historical figure, with a loose amount of believability.  Now, let's say this movie took Abraham Lincoln and instead turned him into a double agent who was actually working against the United States government in attempts to have England regain control of the New World, and let's throw in that he lives at the end.  I would have a problem with that, as it is a fictional scenario based on a real historical figure that didn't do any of that.  Whether or not you believe in angels or the bible is kind of irrelevant; the story of Gabriel has already been told and this movie not only fictionalizes it (which is one thing) but completely changes the disposition, action and motivation of the entity that is being referenced.  No bueno.
   On to the lighter things.  Is this teacher certified?  In ANYTHING?  She leaves the kids unattended not once, or twice, but THREE TIMES...and that's just in the 98 minutes we get to see her irresponsible monitoring skills.  Not to mention that two out of the three times the students are unsupervised, the kids end up not just in proximity, but on the LAP of a TOTAL STRANGER.  Seem weird to anyone else?  Maybe it's just me.
   So, Gabriel is an angel.  Got it.  He can spontaneously combust people, pull them from death's doorstep, and hurl people across the room, but he can't drive?  Or teleport?  Or fly, maybe?  This is just ridiculous.
   I kind of have a problem grasping the fact that the person that saves the day in this story is...Satan?  Huhshdflnwhaaat?  I can wrap my mind around the rationale as to why he might intervene, sure, but there is just something about this picture that won't ever sit right with me.

Wrap up- Overall, I think I need to take a break from 90s theological based horror flicks.  The premises and casts are promising, but the effects, delivery, and overall stories are disappointing.

HOME

Film Filter: Off - Sharknado

Film Filter: Off- This movie came up on Netflix's recently added category, and I wanted to peruse it to make sure I understood the premise properly.  Unfortunately, I had, and this movie is literally about a tornado of sharks.  Wow.

Pros- The only thing I could come up with was that Tara Reid's character wore a shirt baggy enough to cover her horrendous boob job.

Cons- Okay.  Let's pretend for a second that the TERRIBLE special effects and CGI didn't singlehandedly ruin this film, or that the lack of character development and sub-par acting didn't make this film laughable within the first three minutes.  Above and beyond all that, there are a plethora of unanswered questions, extraordinarily stupid and illogical moments, inconsistencies galore, and just plain old incorrect information.  Oy vey.  Methinks I should break this down by category.

• Inconsistencies galore- So, one minute the beach is in a full swing hurricane, and in the next shot the waves are calm.  One scene shows the characters in a monsoon, the next scene their hair is dry.  They are all in the house, and all of a sudden the windows burst with water and it starts to fill up to their waist.  As soon as they leave, however, there is less than an inch of water on the ground.  ?!  SPOILER ALERT- Fin can slice up a shark directly in half as it cascades from the sky at likely record speeds, but can't cut through it from the inside out without taking a painfully pansy-ish amount of time?  Lame.
• Just plain old incorrect information- Sharks, although given an unfair cinematic reputation, are not that aggressive.  They were, like, in two feet of water just eating people and attacking them at random.  Sharks don't play that way, homie.  At least, not in real life.  Also, these sharks were able to jump ridiculously high, when in reality only few species of shark can actually accomplish this feat.  One of the sharks conveniently landed on top of the vehicle they were driving, and was able to eat its way through the roof of the car and attack the passengers.  First of all, most breeds of shark can only cognitively function outside of water for between 3-7 minutes, and secondly (although I didn't crunch the numbers) I'm fairly certain that they don't possess the strength to eat through the entire roof of a Jeep.  Lastly, let's diffuse the tornado by throwing a bomb in it!  Wait, what?  Does that actually work?  That's a no.  And let's not forget the stupid shark in the retirement pool.  Sharks can't live in freshwater (unless they're Bull Sharks), let alone highly chlorinated, chemically infested, geriatric pee-ridden pool water.  Get your shit together, Sharknado researchers.  Were they all wasted when they laid out the story line, or did they just use a Magic 8 ball to guide their brilliant decisions?
• Stupid and illogical moments- So we're throwing bombs in tornados, and I'm just going to have to deal with that, but how in the hell does Matt's flight instructor get sucked up by the tornado through a window, when he and Nova were able to fly in a helicopter (UNBUCKLED) directly next to it without facing its repercussions?  Did they take their magic tornado repellant that morning or something?  I'm not buying it.  Plus, there are tons of moments where sharks "just so happen" to be falling from the sky in the correct manner and position to eat someone on the way down.  Does this strike anyone else as highly coincidental?  When the hero of the movie is climbing up the rope, a shark jumps (unusually high) and latches on to it.  Ummmm, no.  That wouldn't happen.  With the rope being that thin?  And why would the shark even want to?  Ay yay yay...  Last but not least, the odds of both Fin and Nova ending up in the belly of the same shark, unscathed and alive?  It's very biblically poignant, but come on.  Really?
• A plethora of unanswered questions- Where on earth did all of these sharks come from?  That was never really explained.  "Oh, it's just the storm"  No way, not buying it.  Plus they're way too aggressive.  At least in Deep Blue Sea there was a logical explanation for the unnecessary rage in the sharks.  I guess if I was floating around in a hurricane, and then a tornado, I'd be pissed too.  Why did Fin and his wife split up?  And WHY did he get back together with her at the end?  She was an irrational be-yotch who couldn't act her way out of a D-list, made for TV, sy-fy movie.  Literally.  

Wrap up- Clearly, I could go on for hours with this film's issues.  At the end of the day though, I have a really hard time believing that this movie was meant to be taken seriously.  If it was, god help the movie industry.

HOME

Film Filter: Off - Paranormal Activity 3

Film Filter: Off- I have to admit that the first film had the element of intrigue because it was the first.  The second one was mildly interesting, as it leads into the story of the first one.  Did this film really need to made, though?  Really?

Pros- As I found with the other two movies, the acting in these films is very believable.  The character interactions feel very realistic, and even the children seem to have a very believable niche in the film, in terms of their characterization.
   If you're into the ever-so-slowly-built anticipation and suspense type of thrills, you will enjoy this franchise.  I will admit that it is effective in ways, but the manner in which this scare tactic should be used is the real key to building a successful film.  This film doesn't quite get there.
   Again, the analytic in me likes the expansion of the story, and the answers that are provided to fill in the gaps.  There comes a point, though, when stories don't likely need to be continued, and I fear this franchise will reach this point sooner than they will stop putting out movies.
   For any other "pros", check out my reviews of the first two films.  They're all kind of the same at this point.

Cons- The beginning of the movie was slightly hard to follow through it's time changes, but once the time stamps started occurring on the film, it cleared everything up.  Maybe it had just been so long since  I had seen the other two, and knowing that this one is a prequel that took place when Katie and Krista where kids, I was confused to see them as adults.
   As soon as the movie started taking place in 1988, it was a little odd to me that Dennis was so gung-ho on filming everything.  In the first film, Micah gets a camera and is oddly obsessed with filming, and the second one uses security cameras.  It makes a bit more sense when the audience realizes that Dennis is a videographer, but why would he waste his resources filming random things in the house?  Eventually, enough evidence presents itself for him to want to document things, but at the beginning of the film it doesn't seem logical to me that he's wasting film on pointless things.
   This.  Film.  Is. So.  Slow.  In the one hour and forty some odd minutes of its runtime, we learn probably three things total.  And most of that information is awarded toward the end of the film.  When you're creating the first film in a series, by all means, build the suspense and make us wait for it.  But in the third installment?  Please.  We're invested this time for the information.  Not the 72 minutes of pointless footage that includes a swinging lamp that bursts and a young girl standing in her mom's bedroom for three hours.  Not to mention, when information is disclosed, it is mighty difficult to decipher it.  I could figure out the connections between the witches and the markings and the house, but the whole wedding/first boy in the family really went over my head.  When you line it all up from film to film it makes sense, but it took awhile for me.
   There are multiple opportunities for there to have been frightening moments that were not properly taken advantage of.  Examples being the Bloody Mary scene, and the baby-sitter in the kitchen.  There was something that occurred, yes, but was it scary?  Eh...not so much.  There is a difference, to me, between a truly frightening moment, and something that seems scarier than it is because in contrast to the slow paced, boring scenes that take up 92% of the film it stands out.  Anything would be scary in contrast to, well, nothing happening.  I know some argue that this movie is able to deliver scares by not really doing anything but playing on people's fears of what goes bump in the night, and to a degree they have a point.  If you want to save the money to see it in theaters, though, I'll show up in your bedroom and scare you for a dollar.  Way cheaper.

Wrap up- This movie does a good job of creating suspense, and never fulfilling its promise of delivering anything actually scary.  It's literally an hour and a half of waiting to be scared, and then watching the credits and saying, "Oh.  Really?  That's it?".  Le sigh.  I would say I have high hopes for 4 & 5, but based on eviews of the new one, I might just quit while I'm ahead.  Er, behind.  Whatever.

HOME

Film Filter: Off - The Ninth Gate

Film Filter: Off- As you will likely know if you've followed my blog, I'm pretty enthralled with theological or satanic movies.  This clearly falls into that category, and it features Johnny Depp, so how could I say no?

Pros- Well, Johnny Depp, for one.  Although I wasn't in love with this film, he does a solid job portraying the self-serving books dealer who's in it for the money.  He finds ways to fit some quirky humor into the role at times as well which, with a movie over two hours in length, is arguably necessary.

   Despite the fact that the movie itself is so long, the pacing seemed pretty smooth.  There weren't any parts of the film that dragged, and the few times that you sensed the movie was following a predictable pattern, they found a way to make slight changes that threw you off.

   The idea of devil worshipping and idolatry is not new, but the way this one played out was slightly different.  I definitely liked that there were three books, and there were puzzle pieces hidden within them.  It made it more interesting and complex.  It also added obstacles, as the book itself was too precious for any of the owners to part with, making Depp's character have to work for the information.

   By the time the film was coming to a close, I hope most audience members realized the film, and particularly the woman, was going in one of two directions.  I thought it was definitely interesting which direction was taken, as it was not the predictable ending that I assumed it would be.  It was a gratifying in ways, but not in others.  Definitely points for going against the grain, though.

Cons- The music.  Oh, God, that music.  I have no idea who scored this film, but there were parts of it that were literally laughable because of the score.  Bad, bad, bad.  There were one or two parts where I did feel that the music did enhance the scene, with some light, minor piano nuances, but those were much too few and far between.

   The fight scenes.  Really, 1999?  Is that all you've got?  It was very poorly done, and because the rest of the movie wasn't so, it made it stand out in a less than favorable way.  Lucky for me, there were only a handful of fight scenes throughout the whole thing, so the suffering was minimal.

   Awkward levitation.  Was that absolutely necessary?  I mean, clearly she's getting from point A to point B way sooner than humans can, so can't she just teleport?  Or just show up there in the scene?  It's fine that she can levitate, and I get that it puts a sort of tangible awareness to her non-humanness, but if you can't make it look right then I wouldn't bother.  We're an adult audience, we can figure it out without seeing horrible special effects that ruin the magic of her presence.

   The ending left some questions.  I would research this further or read the book if you're confused.  It helps.

Wrap up- I can't say my first tackled film of 2014 was a hit.  It definitely had some massive potential, but too many tiny flaws blew it for the movie as a whole.  This film is whole-heartedly so-so.

HOME

Film Filter: Off - The Call of the Cthulhu

Film Filter: Off- Yay for my awesome brother buying me not one, but TWO scary movies for Christmas!  This one was particularly intriguing as it was a more recent film (2005) that attempted to re-create a story in old fashioned silent film style.  Never having watched a silent film of any kind, I was interested to venture ahead.

Pros- This movie had a lot of things going in its favor.  Again, never having seen a silent film, I can only gauge its effectiveness from my inexperienced perspective.  I liked the minimalism in subtitles, as it really forced you to pay attention to the film to realize what is going on.  They didn't overdo it and spoon-feed you the entire plot, which was nice.

   This movie was filmed in Mythoscope, which seems to be a method of recording or editing recent film to make it look antiquated.  This was a nice homage to how movies would have been filmed in the 1920s.  Surprisingly, I didn't find it as distracting as I thought I would.

   Speaking of the whole throwback idea of the film, the acting, "special effects", makeup, and set design all felt very appropriate to the time period.  It was very interesting to me to think back to a time when movies were this drastically different.  I found myself asking very stupid questions with very obvious answers: "Why did they make silent films in the first place?" or "Why couldn't they just shoot this scene on an island?" were some of the gems I came out with,

   I have to give this movie props, as it was likely a very scary story back in its time.  It's hard to imagine, though, with the way we currently view and value horror flicks, that this was actually frightening to anyone.  I don't want my lack of knowledge of older silent films to cause me to slam this film as "lame" when I have nothing to compare it to, so I will just say that I thought the psychological/dreaming aspect was kind of neat, and felt to me to be the attempted "horror" in the film, as opposed to the monster itself.  I liked the ending, and thought it was a good indication that the aforementioned is true.

   I liked the score!  I'm obviously big on music in movies, and it was so fun to see music actually shaping and assisting with the story, as opposed to just being present for ominous parts, or foreshadowing.

   Lastly, no loopholes!  The one error I thought I caught (the lead character reading English text from a Swiss man's journal) was cleared up as the journal entrant did not want his wife to read it, so he chose to write in English to keep it a secret from her.  Well played. indeed.

Cons- In the beginning of the movie, the time period and perspective changed three or four times, and it was hard to keep up with.  Without modern luxuries like color and sound, those transitions weren't as seamless as they obviously would be today, which caused some brief confusion at times.

   Disregarding nuances that were clearly meant to be time-period relevant, I didn't find a lot of cons in this.  I didn't think the monster was super scary, and I thought they could have done more with less actual shots of it and more shadow shots.  A minor complaint, though, given the point of the film.

Wrap up- I didn't actually enjoy this film as much as I might've enjoyed others, but in retrospect I really think it did a solid job of telling the story in the desired fashion.  It's not a type of film I'm probably ever going to love, or seek out, but I'm really glad I got the opportunity to watch and review a silent horror.

HOME

Film Filter: Off - Red State

Film Filter: Off- I had passed this on Netflix many a time, so I figured I would finally sit down and watch it.  I have to say, I was surprised when I did.

Pros- This film definitely gets points for its originality.  I don't think I've ever seen, or heard of for that matter, another movie that is quite like this one.  It started out like a typical horror movie, but then went in a very different direction.

   Overall, I think the actors in the film did an admirable job, especially Michael Parks in the role of the minister.  John Goodman was a surprise in this film, and although his characterization was a little weak, he did the best he could with it.

   I think the idea of using a public religious controversy like the Westboro Baptist Church worked in this film's favor.  It's something that most audience members have likely heard of, whether or not they know a lot about it.  It definitely sheds some light on religious fanatics in a cult-like fashion, which is well received when it comes to horror films.

   One of the surprises I got out of this film was that it was directed by Kevin Smith.  After doing a little research, which I would strongly recommend if you're interested in Smith as a director, I found that this movie was not meant to be comedic, which is pretty evident when you watch it.  The description, along with Smith as director, leads you to believe otherwise, so it was an unexpected twist.  He also mentioned in an interview that there are little to no redeeming characters, which is also pretty evident when you watch the film.  This is also interesting, as it sort of breaks the mold of the traditional horror movie formula.

   The ending was pretty poignant.

Cons- I would be lying if I said that this was not a frustrating film to watch.  As previously mentioned, this movie breaks the standard formula, and as a result kills off some characters that shouldn't die, and prolongs the life of those that should.  You could argue that this is a brilliant strategy, as it lessens the predictability, but there was too much ungratified and unjustified instances of it that it turned me off.

Wrap up- I would recommend this film, based solely off its individuality.  It might not be my favorite, but it's different and eye opening.

HOME