I liked it. Wilson and Beckinsale are a separating couple unhappy after the loss of their child. On a long trip, Wilson takes the anticipated shortcut and the car, as always, breaks down. Of course, the only place to bed for the night is a no-tell motel. They soon discover the proprietors use the motel as a setting to make snuff films involving the guests. The whole movie is about trying to survive and escape… and may remind you of the The Hills Have Eyes (especially due to a network of tunnels). Amazingly, that’s all there is to tell. I will say that all the performances were good, and Beckinsale thankfully gave better than her average performance without wearing anything skin-tight.
Although the introduction of the loss of the couple's child was used to make us sympathize with the characters, it was never really developed in any manner. It was just a convenience that I found patronizing. Seriously, any past tragedy is soon forgotten when you're being chased by a murderer. I can hear it now, "Aaah! He sliced my arm! It reminds me of the time young Bobby scraped his elbow! Aaaiiieeee! He's trying to kill me!! I sure miss little Bobby." Another aspect of this argument is that a bad relationship probably wouldn't affect someone's request for help: "Someone help me! No, not you! We're still fighting!" But I give it 7 outta 10.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Masters of Horror: Valerie on the Stairs
Here’s the premise. An unsuccessful author takes refuge from failure in a decrepit apartment building left in trust for failing writers. The protagonist sees a nude woman on the stairs and approaches. After several conversations, the protagonist learns that this girl is enslaved by a demon. In investigating the girl-- and her relationship potential-- the protagonist discovers several other authors are working together to create a novel. What they write comes true, and thus they created the girl and the demon.
I preferred this story when entitled In the Mouth of Madness… or when candied up as The Neverending Story. Anyway, the demon starts killing off the authors until our protagonist must destroy it. Do I need to say more, or are you already laughing? If not, the actors’ attempts at making this seem real will make you guffaw quite hardily. Christopher Lloyd can’t help this failure, and neither can the multiple appearances of the nude girl. It just wasn’t good. The story was overly simplistic and heavily borrowed from more familiar works. It’ll remind you of ‘80s cheese horrors. Oh and the effects were horrible. I give it a 3 outta 10.
I preferred this story when entitled In the Mouth of Madness… or when candied up as The Neverending Story. Anyway, the demon starts killing off the authors until our protagonist must destroy it. Do I need to say more, or are you already laughing? If not, the actors’ attempts at making this seem real will make you guffaw quite hardily. Christopher Lloyd can’t help this failure, and neither can the multiple appearances of the nude girl. It just wasn’t good. The story was overly simplistic and heavily borrowed from more familiar works. It’ll remind you of ‘80s cheese horrors. Oh and the effects were horrible. I give it a 3 outta 10.
Perfect Creature
...but not nearly a perfect feature. Once again we have a story that promises to take us in one direction, but the writer or director throws a pick and we’re forced into an entirely different direction. Ahem, apparently this is a “nice” vampire picture, where vampires act in appreciated governance of what seem to be illiterate humans in some hodgepodge of incongruous eras from the first half of our 20th century. Ergo, you have to wonder if the film is set in a distant time in the past, perhaps some period in the future, or maybe in some alternate universe a la Star Trek (Ugh). Then there’s the story.
Vampires have lost the ability to procreate, so chemistry is used to alleviate this natural pressure. A potential serum goes wrong, and an almost rabid vampire results. He’s so strong, such a perfect creature, that his brother can kick his wazoo with only minimal to medium effort. Really, every plot-twist and story device acts independently to tear away any believability. We sit before the screen ready to believe in a premise, but faith only carries so far in the face of a story’s self-destruction.
The acting wasn’t bad, per se, but not great, either. The movie doesn’t give any answers, and doesn't really hint at the questions for which we seek the answers. This is due to a lack of background. We have no real paradigm and so don’t know the rules. But the movie simply shrugs away our attempts to understand. The few scenes that do make an attempt to enlighten the audience are out of synchronization with the rest of the film. They were probably shot post-production when the exec’s noticed that they the film was directionless (I realize I'm giving movie exec's too much credit).
I’m sure this will face a remake at some time in the future, where it might be improved tenfold, but right now, I give it a 5.5 outta 10. The cinematography was good, and creating a new universe-whatever-it-was had to be difficult. And after all, it passed a rainy Sunday.
Vampires have lost the ability to procreate, so chemistry is used to alleviate this natural pressure. A potential serum goes wrong, and an almost rabid vampire results. He’s so strong, such a perfect creature, that his brother can kick his wazoo with only minimal to medium effort. Really, every plot-twist and story device acts independently to tear away any believability. We sit before the screen ready to believe in a premise, but faith only carries so far in the face of a story’s self-destruction.
The acting wasn’t bad, per se, but not great, either. The movie doesn’t give any answers, and doesn't really hint at the questions for which we seek the answers. This is due to a lack of background. We have no real paradigm and so don’t know the rules. But the movie simply shrugs away our attempts to understand. The few scenes that do make an attempt to enlighten the audience are out of synchronization with the rest of the film. They were probably shot post-production when the exec’s noticed that they the film was directionless (I realize I'm giving movie exec's too much credit).
I’m sure this will face a remake at some time in the future, where it might be improved tenfold, but right now, I give it a 5.5 outta 10. The cinematography was good, and creating a new universe-whatever-it-was had to be difficult. And after all, it passed a rainy Sunday.
Blood Diamond
If you believe DeCrappio can portray a battle-hardened, South African diamond-smuggler with any degree of believability, then I have some oceanfront property for sale in Arizona. Still, I usually like to see Connelly on the screen, but her performance was equally uninspiring in this flic. Finally, the only decent performance was by Hounsou, but it didn’t come close to saving the film as his character seemed incapable of independent, individual thought, leaving the character to appear as a non-sentient being.
This was just another film pandering to social concerns about the diamond trade in Africa. But I believe many will still venture forth to various jewelry stores for engagement rings just after watching the film. “Clean” diamonds represent another advertisement like “organic” foods, which are simply meant to shift marketing (all foods contain carbon and are, therefore, organic. But idiots and hippies are just another demographic for corporate marketing). Another frustration is that the real diamond markets aren’t explored. It’s simply a film about pirates vying for the same treasure, just for different motivations leading back to a single “life’s tough” perspective and resultant selfishness.
I wasn’t too impressed. If you want the realities of the diamond trade, then do some personal research from citable sources rather than relying on a sensationalized story about one character—DeCrappio. Ah, the tragedy of the commons. However, if you seek justification for guilty feelings and tears arising from a glamorization of the social conditions arising from diamonds found in Africa, get this movie. I give it a 5 outta 10 for the scenery and the blame placed so squarely on the demand curve of G4 nations for the wrong reasons. Make that a 4.5 since DeCrappio sucks so much. [Ed.’s Note: Zeke disagrees on this one]
This was just another film pandering to social concerns about the diamond trade in Africa. But I believe many will still venture forth to various jewelry stores for engagement rings just after watching the film. “Clean” diamonds represent another advertisement like “organic” foods, which are simply meant to shift marketing (all foods contain carbon and are, therefore, organic. But idiots and hippies are just another demographic for corporate marketing). Another frustration is that the real diamond markets aren’t explored. It’s simply a film about pirates vying for the same treasure, just for different motivations leading back to a single “life’s tough” perspective and resultant selfishness.
I wasn’t too impressed. If you want the realities of the diamond trade, then do some personal research from citable sources rather than relying on a sensationalized story about one character—DeCrappio. Ah, the tragedy of the commons. However, if you seek justification for guilty feelings and tears arising from a glamorization of the social conditions arising from diamonds found in Africa, get this movie. I give it a 5 outta 10 for the scenery and the blame placed so squarely on the demand curve of G4 nations for the wrong reasons. Make that a 4.5 since DeCrappio sucks so much. [Ed.’s Note: Zeke disagrees on this one]
Sword of Doom
Anyone reading more than one of my opinions might glean that I have an interest in asian and other foreign films. Much as western films, most are based in cultural precepts and traditional tales. Because American writers seem to lack the ability to do anything but update old stories I’ve already heard or seen too many times, I find myself depending on indies and foreign films for new ideas. I think that sentiment is reflected in many audiences as we see huge success in films based in comics and graphic novels. My dissertation aside, this film’s originality can’t save anyone from boredom.
The story here is that a samurai warrior carries his comrade, injured in battle, to a temple for respite from battle. The might-be-priest that welcomes this protagonist actually is a very introspective demon awaiting an opponent that can defeat him in battle. There is a good bit of philosophy dispersed throughout the film in conversational fashion, and the fight scenes are choreographed well when they too infrequently appear. But the story, simple as it is, requires a great deal of time to develop. Plus the ending arrives per a “dues ex machina” mechanism, which leaves you with mouth agape while thinking incredulously, “I waited for this?”
Naturally ,this film was better suited as a short-act drama, where the audience could be prepared to learn the backstories of the characters from mere dialogue. As well, the pace was burdening, so I give it a 4.5 outta 10.
The story here is that a samurai warrior carries his comrade, injured in battle, to a temple for respite from battle. The might-be-priest that welcomes this protagonist actually is a very introspective demon awaiting an opponent that can defeat him in battle. There is a good bit of philosophy dispersed throughout the film in conversational fashion, and the fight scenes are choreographed well when they too infrequently appear. But the story, simple as it is, requires a great deal of time to develop. Plus the ending arrives per a “dues ex machina” mechanism, which leaves you with mouth agape while thinking incredulously, “I waited for this?”
Naturally ,this film was better suited as a short-act drama, where the audience could be prepared to learn the backstories of the characters from mere dialogue. As well, the pace was burdening, so I give it a 4.5 outta 10.
Wind Chill
Hmm. This is a difficult call. Really, there’s only a single setting—a car on the side of a desolate road in the middle of winter—and only two characters. I give it an “A” for the attempt to drive the story with the dialogue and eerie ambience. I also appreciated that the character development of the male/driver (Holmes), who might be a stalker/murderer or a misguided and socially inept victim. But that just wasn’t enough to carry a 90 minute film, and neither were the conversations between that character and the heroine (Blunt). The effects, or what there were of effects, in this more-suitably-categorized-as-drama dud, were lacking. In the end, it’s only a 5 outta 10.
Aqua Teen Hunger Force
Fans of the cartoon certainly will enjoy the animated film. The DVD is a 2-disc set, with the second disc containing the “deleted” movie. I actually prefer the deleted movie to its more polished counterpart, which some might perceive as less offensive. Either way, followers of Adult Swim should be enthused.
All of the expected characters make an appearance. As in the normal episodes, I catch myself wanting to see more of Carl. I say that with the understanding that all things are best in moderation. Although the entire story represents a crudely assembled set of small, episodic stories, it doesn’t deprive the major plot of attention… too much. In sum, nothing changes with respect to the photoshop animation, and humor remains the work’s driving force. I tag it an 8.5 outta 10 (the deleted movie) versus 7.5 outta 10 (main feature).
All of the expected characters make an appearance. As in the normal episodes, I catch myself wanting to see more of Carl. I say that with the understanding that all things are best in moderation. Although the entire story represents a crudely assembled set of small, episodic stories, it doesn’t deprive the major plot of attention… too much. In sum, nothing changes with respect to the photoshop animation, and humor remains the work’s driving force. I tag it an 8.5 outta 10 (the deleted movie) versus 7.5 outta 10 (main feature).
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Severance
This is an English film, so you might expect some dry wit… even though you might be slightly disappointed if you expect Monte Python or Fawlty Towers. Be that as it may, the idea of the film is excellent: a group of corporate idiots go to a retreat to undergo team-building exercises, but something or someone begins killing them one by one. It’s reminiscent of Dog Soldiers (an awesome movie) in that respect.
Most of the story relies on characters’ strengths and weaknesses, as well as their interactions. Of course, the oh-so-foolish corporate types are led by their unqualified manager, who is actually an idiot (and probably reminds you of your own managers). Anyway, the comical escapades of the group make the movie more of a “zomedy” film, but they work more often than not. As well, the identity of the antagonist(s) is a play on urban legend.
The acting, considering the genre, was pretty good. The writing was typical of UK movies following Shaun of the Dead. The cinematography was okay, as well, but nothing about which to write home. I guess, in the end, it lies somewhere between “okay” and “alright”. I give it a 6 outta 10, well maybe 5.5 outta 10. I wanted more dark and/or dry humor. Not all the jokes attempted here worked that well. Also, the character (in real business life) of some underling that wants to become the manager, and so plots, lies, and kisses butt, is missing. That’s not that big of a deal, however, as he would be the first one you would want killed.
Most of the story relies on characters’ strengths and weaknesses, as well as their interactions. Of course, the oh-so-foolish corporate types are led by their unqualified manager, who is actually an idiot (and probably reminds you of your own managers). Anyway, the comical escapades of the group make the movie more of a “zomedy” film, but they work more often than not. As well, the identity of the antagonist(s) is a play on urban legend.
The acting, considering the genre, was pretty good. The writing was typical of UK movies following Shaun of the Dead. The cinematography was okay, as well, but nothing about which to write home. I guess, in the end, it lies somewhere between “okay” and “alright”. I give it a 6 outta 10, well maybe 5.5 outta 10. I wanted more dark and/or dry humor. Not all the jokes attempted here worked that well. Also, the character (in real business life) of some underling that wants to become the manager, and so plots, lies, and kisses butt, is missing. That’s not that big of a deal, however, as he would be the first one you would want killed.
Closure
Wow. Gillian Anderson on my living room TV again after all these years… (so I rented it, okay?!?!). I admit my X-Files fandom from back in the day, but I still think she’s an underrated actress even while acknowledging that her style limits her exposition. That’s her problem here, also. She plays a physically (and mentally) strong to fierce woman, wholly empowered, but with striking flaws in behavior that make you doubt the character’s credibility. The flaws just aren’t fitting, and the moments in which they’re divulged make the character seem superficially altered after the fact.
Anyway, the storyline wasn’t bad. Its initial realism made it seem foreboding, but simultaneously humanized the perceived threat. By the end of the movie, you’ve almost decided that you should hate the protagonists either as villainous figures or frustratingly weak, spineless heros. I believe much of that arises from the frustrating actions of the protagonists and their poorly scripted interactions.
The ending will leave you wanting, but I will give credit for two points. First, the film seems to explore sexual relationships and acts. We have intercourse between strangers, rape of a female, bonding of the protagonists despite impotence (most obviously depicting the underlying theme of control of self versus others), and the rape of a male. I suggest looking between the lines, as it will really help the experience. Second, we get flesh shots of Anderson. Ergo, I give it a 7 outta 10.
Anyway, the storyline wasn’t bad. Its initial realism made it seem foreboding, but simultaneously humanized the perceived threat. By the end of the movie, you’ve almost decided that you should hate the protagonists either as villainous figures or frustratingly weak, spineless heros. I believe much of that arises from the frustrating actions of the protagonists and their poorly scripted interactions.
The ending will leave you wanting, but I will give credit for two points. First, the film seems to explore sexual relationships and acts. We have intercourse between strangers, rape of a female, bonding of the protagonists despite impotence (most obviously depicting the underlying theme of control of self versus others), and the rape of a male. I suggest looking between the lines, as it will really help the experience. Second, we get flesh shots of Anderson. Ergo, I give it a 7 outta 10.
The Messengers
Although a Sam Raimi production, he was not the director (after watching Spiderman 3, I thank goodness for that small respite from Raimi)! The Pang brothers (of “The Eye”) directed, so I didn’t expect any straight forward, in-your-face horror, shock, or suspense. I already knew the entire film would rely on gloomy eeriness. That’s the Pang “thang,” after all. So, we begin.
The subplots of familial relations and trust, blah, blah, blah, is a little tired nowadays. Add to that performances that couldn’t begin to help. I do say that Miller is pretty believable. McDermot doesn’t fit the character or setting or acting profession, which is one reason that aspects of his character seem so contrived, to the point of patronizing the audience. I won’t give away the bad guy, but you should figure it out with ease, since the movie just doesn’t give that many options from which to choose. The protagonist, the daughter/sister does alright for her age. I’d wager she’s been taking too many acting classes, which makes her performance over-the-top in too many respects.
The plot is alright, but, aside from its obviousness, is just borrowed from other, more familiar stories. The cinematography, when the Pangs are involved, is at least respectable. They always have concrete ideas of how to scare before beginning a film. Thus, they bring a J-horror twist to the film. In the end, however, it’s just not enough. You know the antagonist; you know the plot and story; and so you anticipate a huge, eye-candy climax. But your eyes are left starving. It’s worth a rent during the week if you like soap operas. It’s a 5 outta 10.
The subplots of familial relations and trust, blah, blah, blah, is a little tired nowadays. Add to that performances that couldn’t begin to help. I do say that Miller is pretty believable. McDermot doesn’t fit the character or setting or acting profession, which is one reason that aspects of his character seem so contrived, to the point of patronizing the audience. I won’t give away the bad guy, but you should figure it out with ease, since the movie just doesn’t give that many options from which to choose. The protagonist, the daughter/sister does alright for her age. I’d wager she’s been taking too many acting classes, which makes her performance over-the-top in too many respects.
The plot is alright, but, aside from its obviousness, is just borrowed from other, more familiar stories. The cinematography, when the Pangs are involved, is at least respectable. They always have concrete ideas of how to scare before beginning a film. Thus, they bring a J-horror twist to the film. In the end, however, it’s just not enough. You know the antagonist; you know the plot and story; and so you anticipate a huge, eye-candy climax. But your eyes are left starving. It’s worth a rent during the week if you like soap operas. It’s a 5 outta 10.
Primeval
Has anyone seen the campy '70s flics based on the old urban legend of man-eating crocodiles in NY sewers? Here it is again! Right? No. Really, this is just a remake of parts of The Ghost and the Darkness with the lions replaced by a large crocodile. Initially, potential audience members should realize that this isn't a horror film. Nor is it based in suspense. Most of it is a social commentary about tribes in Africa, corrupt governmental participants, and lack of affirmative involvement by other nations. But Sally Struthers already made us aware of that, right? …And only for a dollar a day.
Apparently, a man-eating croc is plaguing tribes along a waterway in Africa. Two reporters are sent to investigate while civil wars rage across the plains. The male reporter is the typical pretty boy, American stereotype (Manfrey). Essentially, he's just the superficial metrosexual waiting to learn a valuable lesson about the value of people. The female reporter is another stereotype, a pretty girl with the nice figure who wants the world to learn compassion (Langton). Therefore, she picked up a pen to change the world by talking while berating others for only talking about problems instead of acting. What a saint. Unfortunately, the two take their time to learn lessons about compassion… and taking action… and hypocrisy… and how if everyone in the world held hands, they would not be able to hold guns.
The conflicts arise only after a gruelingly long first act. Tribes are factioned and rulers gain power with brutal, iron fist politics. Thus, we have reporters versus warlords. The croc eats people, so we also have everyone versus the croc. But the scenery was nice in places. The acting was okay. The social commentary is old news. The worst part of the entire, damnable thing is that I chose a film expecting to get a reptilian croc (instead of this crock of $&%#). I wait forever through old-hat, social expose to get a couple of glimpses of a croc. I was defrauded. If you like PBS programs on tribal relations and politics (but not culture or the histories-- human and ecological-- that lead to such relations), then the movie is almost good. If you want what the DVD cover and summary offer, go get The Ghost and the Darkness and then watch Crocodile. I give this film a 4 outta 10.
Apparently, a man-eating croc is plaguing tribes along a waterway in Africa. Two reporters are sent to investigate while civil wars rage across the plains. The male reporter is the typical pretty boy, American stereotype (Manfrey). Essentially, he's just the superficial metrosexual waiting to learn a valuable lesson about the value of people. The female reporter is another stereotype, a pretty girl with the nice figure who wants the world to learn compassion (Langton). Therefore, she picked up a pen to change the world by talking while berating others for only talking about problems instead of acting. What a saint. Unfortunately, the two take their time to learn lessons about compassion… and taking action… and hypocrisy… and how if everyone in the world held hands, they would not be able to hold guns.
The conflicts arise only after a gruelingly long first act. Tribes are factioned and rulers gain power with brutal, iron fist politics. Thus, we have reporters versus warlords. The croc eats people, so we also have everyone versus the croc. But the scenery was nice in places. The acting was okay. The social commentary is old news. The worst part of the entire, damnable thing is that I chose a film expecting to get a reptilian croc (instead of this crock of $&%#). I wait forever through old-hat, social expose to get a couple of glimpses of a croc. I was defrauded. If you like PBS programs on tribal relations and politics (but not culture or the histories-- human and ecological-- that lead to such relations), then the movie is almost good. If you want what the DVD cover and summary offer, go get The Ghost and the Darkness and then watch Crocodile. I give this film a 4 outta 10.
The Abandoned
Well, this is the film that one the After Dark Horrorfest in 2006, When I ask myself how this trash could have won, I can only conceive of a few, limited scenarios: (1) nepotism; (2) judges received sexual favors; (3) the judges and producers were one and the same; and/or (4) death threats. By now, you've probably guessed my opinion of this exercise in trite boredom, but I'll continue anyway (so I can here myself talk).
The story is one of those with potential never realized… even when using one's imagination while reading the script—on drugs. The idiosyncrasies were frustratingly common and obvious. The story itself, when finally reaching the end, made no real sense. Perhaps the target audience was some pagan cult. Either way, the director is an obvious fan of David Lynch, but without things like artistry or talent. The acting was subpar, and the dim lighting couldn't overcome it. The anxiety you may experience from trailers is only available during the trailers. Everything in between those highlights should have been left on the cutting room floor. Those are really the high points. Aside fom that, the film really is… boring. It seems too stylistic in an attempted European or "film noir" manner, perhaps, but without succeeding. I would say, "You'll know what I mean when you see it," but I don't want to inspire you to waste cash on even a one-night rental. Seriously, I wouldn't even borrow this from a friend.
Overall, it gets a 1.5 outta 10. Normally, I'll grant 0.5 points because something's in the horror genre, and I naturally allot 0.5 because some idiot invested time in a given film's creation. That's a 1 outta 10 for breathing. In this film, there was one effect that wasn't bad, so to avoid bashing this rip-off completely, I gave that a 0.5 designation. There you go, 1.5.
The story is one of those with potential never realized… even when using one's imagination while reading the script—on drugs. The idiosyncrasies were frustratingly common and obvious. The story itself, when finally reaching the end, made no real sense. Perhaps the target audience was some pagan cult. Either way, the director is an obvious fan of David Lynch, but without things like artistry or talent. The acting was subpar, and the dim lighting couldn't overcome it. The anxiety you may experience from trailers is only available during the trailers. Everything in between those highlights should have been left on the cutting room floor. Those are really the high points. Aside fom that, the film really is… boring. It seems too stylistic in an attempted European or "film noir" manner, perhaps, but without succeeding. I would say, "You'll know what I mean when you see it," but I don't want to inspire you to waste cash on even a one-night rental. Seriously, I wouldn't even borrow this from a friend.
Overall, it gets a 1.5 outta 10. Normally, I'll grant 0.5 points because something's in the horror genre, and I naturally allot 0.5 because some idiot invested time in a given film's creation. That's a 1 outta 10 for breathing. In this film, there was one effect that wasn't bad, so to avoid bashing this rip-off completely, I gave that a 0.5 designation. There you go, 1.5.
Behind the Mask
Note!! It’s not as bad as you would think. I think we all understand, at least unconsciously, two important indicators of cinematic failure. First, if a film goes straight to DVD, chances are the budget wasn't there for good writers, directors, effects, and so on. Second, if your local rental joint only carries a single copy, the production/distribution was probably mapped on the assumption that no one would ever really want to view it, or the fact that the Hollywood wisdom wouldn’t put anything behind the movie. This movie surpasses these presumptions by far.
The story is based on an up-and-coming mass-killer-wannabe who invites a small, inexperienced documentary crew—probably from the local community college's journalism program—to document his first killing spree and the preparation for it. Therefore, the beginning of the film holds a B-rated documentary style. The killer/protagonist is a regular Joe who is an expert on the horror movie genre. He explains with humor galore his unbelievable intentions, training, and plan. As the story progresses, we see that plan unfold, where the film shifts from B-rated documentary to a true horror film with intensity and a surprise twist.
The story is great, and for those with patience, wonderfully executed. The humor of learning the postulated motivations and strategies underlying the archetypal Vorhees, Myers, and similar mass-killers is worth a watch. When the perspective of the story changes, so does the style. The intensity honestly seems to increase five-fold. True, there wasn't a huge budget, but the documentary style was perfectly fitting in the first half. Plus, Robert Englund appears! All the acting was good, though the heroine was sometimes annoyingly unpolished. The plot and the sub-plot were great, and the twist actually caught me… though in hindsight, I don't know how.
Due to the realism and corniness of the flic, where the lack of budget actually was used as an asset, as were the intensity-shift and ultimate plot-twist, I highly recommend this film. I give it an overall 8.5 outta 10.
The story is based on an up-and-coming mass-killer-wannabe who invites a small, inexperienced documentary crew—probably from the local community college's journalism program—to document his first killing spree and the preparation for it. Therefore, the beginning of the film holds a B-rated documentary style. The killer/protagonist is a regular Joe who is an expert on the horror movie genre. He explains with humor galore his unbelievable intentions, training, and plan. As the story progresses, we see that plan unfold, where the film shifts from B-rated documentary to a true horror film with intensity and a surprise twist.
The story is great, and for those with patience, wonderfully executed. The humor of learning the postulated motivations and strategies underlying the archetypal Vorhees, Myers, and similar mass-killers is worth a watch. When the perspective of the story changes, so does the style. The intensity honestly seems to increase five-fold. True, there wasn't a huge budget, but the documentary style was perfectly fitting in the first half. Plus, Robert Englund appears! All the acting was good, though the heroine was sometimes annoyingly unpolished. The plot and the sub-plot were great, and the twist actually caught me… though in hindsight, I don't know how.
Due to the realism and corniness of the flic, where the lack of budget actually was used as an asset, as were the intensity-shift and ultimate plot-twist, I highly recommend this film. I give it an overall 8.5 outta 10.
Shooter
It's hard to find a good action film these days, but this one fits the bill neatly despite its flaws. Let's hop right into it. Walberg plays an ex-sniper who disavowed the job but remains well-practiced (just in case of what?) and well-known to certain officials. In an attempt to help some government agency in determining an assassination plot on the president, Walberg is framed for the attempt. The rest of the film tells how our height-disabled hero will find and then dispatch the officials who set him up for the fall. Gun battles ensue.
Well, there are a lot of unbelievable parts of the movie, and a pretty unbelievable sidekick. But this is an action film with all sights (pardon the pun) on Walberg's heroics. The action is good and starts relatively early. Some over-the-top sequences will leave you chuckling. For instance, there were two parts I couldn't overlook. At the end, a hostage trade occurs on a glacier. Somehow, Walberg and sidekick arrive on the glacier which is only accessible by helicopter (I'm assuming the trade wasn't planned for several months in the future, as time would be of the essence). No way that could happen. Second, Walberg-turn-mercenary assassinates the ultimate antagonist at the resolution. He thus assumes a role of one above the law to kill someone for acting above the law. Do we see the conflicting irony? He loses hero status.
I give it a 6.5 outta 10 because the hero's character isn't a figure like Rambo, and a lot of the action scenes are just laughable. However, it is action, so it must be given the benefit of the doubt… as one would a mentally handicapped child.
Well, there are a lot of unbelievable parts of the movie, and a pretty unbelievable sidekick. But this is an action film with all sights (pardon the pun) on Walberg's heroics. The action is good and starts relatively early. Some over-the-top sequences will leave you chuckling. For instance, there were two parts I couldn't overlook. At the end, a hostage trade occurs on a glacier. Somehow, Walberg and sidekick arrive on the glacier which is only accessible by helicopter (I'm assuming the trade wasn't planned for several months in the future, as time would be of the essence). No way that could happen. Second, Walberg-turn-mercenary assassinates the ultimate antagonist at the resolution. He thus assumes a role of one above the law to kill someone for acting above the law. Do we see the conflicting irony? He loses hero status.
I give it a 6.5 outta 10 because the hero's character isn't a figure like Rambo, and a lot of the action scenes are just laughable. However, it is action, so it must be given the benefit of the doubt… as one would a mentally handicapped child.
The Promise
Telling who is who and what role they play in this visual epic really robs the fairytale story of its grandeur. But the eye-candy is astounding. The effects are also delicious, though only in and of themselves. As such, the ever-present story is beautiful when simplified, but if you look to get something out of it… you might as well choose another film.
That said, there's great cinematography and there would be a great story if it was simplified somewhat. But such eastern films often throw in the kitchen sink, and my western attention span won't accept anything over five seconds. The acting was okay, but there were too many characters and mini-stories to sustain the length of the film. Luckily, the backdrop is so wonderful that it's worth a couple of glances on "mute." I give it a 4.5 outta 10 for the visuals.
That said, there's great cinematography and there would be a great story if it was simplified somewhat. But such eastern films often throw in the kitchen sink, and my western attention span won't accept anything over five seconds. The acting was okay, but there were too many characters and mini-stories to sustain the length of the film. Luckily, the backdrop is so wonderful that it's worth a couple of glances on "mute." I give it a 4.5 outta 10 for the visuals.
The Host
Great idea. This politically and socially inspired film makes you wonder if the antagonist is the monster you see consuming people, or the government monster you see consuming people. Actually, it's both.
This is a Korean-born film, but the relation to all governmental/agency performance is ubiquitous. A monster develops in a local river due to chemical dumping. Once it reaches formidable size (i.e. gets huge), it leaves its sewer home to feed on humans, thus abducting the protagonist's younger sister. The government steps in to perform its usual barrage of impotent tests, all the while treating citizens as if they were the monsters. It was a wonderful and well-executed story in that respect.
The characters, however, may seem cookie-cutter. This, I believe, is simply the method the writer/director uses to present representations of the typical members of society. In any case, all the performers gave at least acceptable performances, playing well to the theme's tragic humor. Again, as is found in many eastern productions, too many characters' stories were followed individually, so the audience will be challenged to align with any one character. It simply detracts from the development of a hero with whom you can identify and for whom you can cheer. It also lengthens the story, where breaks in pace may throw the audience's attention. But the parallels to actual events stand as the redeeming grace for the movie as a whole. Plus, the monster is awesome, and I found myself routing for it in many instances.
Overall, a 7.5 outta 10. Those who like monster-horrors and political satire (isn't that really one of the top reasons we love the horror genre?) will love it as much as those who appreciate the frustrations of tragic irony. I especially recommend it for conversation pieces with youth regarding politics and/or egocentrism.
This is a Korean-born film, but the relation to all governmental/agency performance is ubiquitous. A monster develops in a local river due to chemical dumping. Once it reaches formidable size (i.e. gets huge), it leaves its sewer home to feed on humans, thus abducting the protagonist's younger sister. The government steps in to perform its usual barrage of impotent tests, all the while treating citizens as if they were the monsters. It was a wonderful and well-executed story in that respect.
The characters, however, may seem cookie-cutter. This, I believe, is simply the method the writer/director uses to present representations of the typical members of society. In any case, all the performers gave at least acceptable performances, playing well to the theme's tragic humor. Again, as is found in many eastern productions, too many characters' stories were followed individually, so the audience will be challenged to align with any one character. It simply detracts from the development of a hero with whom you can identify and for whom you can cheer. It also lengthens the story, where breaks in pace may throw the audience's attention. But the parallels to actual events stand as the redeeming grace for the movie as a whole. Plus, the monster is awesome, and I found myself routing for it in many instances.
Overall, a 7.5 outta 10. Those who like monster-horrors and political satire (isn't that really one of the top reasons we love the horror genre?) will love it as much as those who appreciate the frustrations of tragic irony. I especially recommend it for conversation pieces with youth regarding politics and/or egocentrism.
Gravedancers
I consider myself a horror flic aficionado of sorts, and I feel lucky to have caught this one at the After Dark Horror Fest 2006. The big screen really makes a big difference in the experience of viewing any film. Anyway, this is the film that should have won the festival title.
The characters were believable and were well-developed through interacting with each other and their antagonists simultaneously rather than in a lengthy and droll first act. The normal-guy-turned-hero character-types allowed this, and really make the film what it is. Of course, there were flaws here and there in the shooting/editing, but they aren't all too obvious, and what film doesn't have them? I'm not proclaiming the story itself was perfect, but it was fresh, and the audience can easily connect to the heroes (since several types are presented) and so easily accept them if not their circumstances.
Plot development was good. Effects were over-the-top in places, but they often worked despite it. The performances were also good for the most part. Touches of humor arose throughout and really added to the film, as did the interplay between the protagonists. The final segment of the climax was straight from 80s cheese-horrors and could have been done with more thought. In whole, I give it an 8 outta 10.
The characters were believable and were well-developed through interacting with each other and their antagonists simultaneously rather than in a lengthy and droll first act. The normal-guy-turned-hero character-types allowed this, and really make the film what it is. Of course, there were flaws here and there in the shooting/editing, but they aren't all too obvious, and what film doesn't have them? I'm not proclaiming the story itself was perfect, but it was fresh, and the audience can easily connect to the heroes (since several types are presented) and so easily accept them if not their circumstances.
Plot development was good. Effects were over-the-top in places, but they often worked despite it. The performances were also good for the most part. Touches of humor arose throughout and really added to the film, as did the interplay between the protagonists. The final segment of the climax was straight from 80s cheese-horrors and could have been done with more thought. In whole, I give it an 8 outta 10.
Number 23
I liked the film. I have always appreciated conspiracy theories, as well as abnormal psychology, as I normally view both as pseudo-scientific exercises used to play make believe. Put those two together and you get something as good as Yoo-hoo's ™.
Although the cinematography was good, I was not a fan of the alternative parallel story, which seemed cartoonish and out of place. As for story, Carry played the role of the stricken hero (as always) who begins his conspiracy-laden descent into paranoia and lunacy upon reading someone's autobiography who not only suffered the same affliction, but tells of a life with eerie parallels to Carry's own. Thus, the secondary, cartoonish story reflects Carry's personified imaginings which place him in the role of the author/hero about which he reads. That device seemed unnecessary in its form, and so steals from the film's primary story.
To the viewer, the ending may be a twist or perhaps not. Certainly, some of the plot devices may keep some guessing. Either way, it's the journey that matters. And that brings us to the strength of the film, the suspense. Most of that sense arises from well-acted characters. The entire cast, although small, performs well. The story was excellent, but I believe the pre-viewing expectations of a horror film will leave quite a few unsatisfied, as will the need to don their thinking caps during the film. In essence, the audience must prepare to confront three character-driven stories. These intertwined stories and the theme of madness and paranoia keep the film moving. Luckily, the editing and the stories' overlaps create a tension that keeps the movie on pace until the ending allows an exhale.
Overall, I rate it an 8/10. It would get a 9, but I always appreciate some gory brutality in my kill-scenes, even if the lack of it doesn't take from the film. And the "Sin City-like" imaginings of Carry's character can get annoying.
Although the cinematography was good, I was not a fan of the alternative parallel story, which seemed cartoonish and out of place. As for story, Carry played the role of the stricken hero (as always) who begins his conspiracy-laden descent into paranoia and lunacy upon reading someone's autobiography who not only suffered the same affliction, but tells of a life with eerie parallels to Carry's own. Thus, the secondary, cartoonish story reflects Carry's personified imaginings which place him in the role of the author/hero about which he reads. That device seemed unnecessary in its form, and so steals from the film's primary story.
To the viewer, the ending may be a twist or perhaps not. Certainly, some of the plot devices may keep some guessing. Either way, it's the journey that matters. And that brings us to the strength of the film, the suspense. Most of that sense arises from well-acted characters. The entire cast, although small, performs well. The story was excellent, but I believe the pre-viewing expectations of a horror film will leave quite a few unsatisfied, as will the need to don their thinking caps during the film. In essence, the audience must prepare to confront three character-driven stories. These intertwined stories and the theme of madness and paranoia keep the film moving. Luckily, the editing and the stories' overlaps create a tension that keeps the movie on pace until the ending allows an exhale.
Overall, I rate it an 8/10. It would get a 9, but I always appreciate some gory brutality in my kill-scenes, even if the lack of it doesn't take from the film. And the "Sin City-like" imaginings of Carry's character can get annoying.
MTV's Beneath
Can you guess what I'm about to say? I watched the film before realizing it was a product of MTV. Normally, I would hit myself in the head with a hammer, thus saving the time this movie took to destroy the same amount of my brain. Perhaps for MTV a new standard has been set, since I only feel like a single frontal lobe was lost.
Cinematography and directing? There's nothing to mention except that the director resisted the quick-change, odd-angle editing reminiscent of music videos. As such, the pace of the film was not the horror one might expect (Get it? Horror?). Similarly, none of the performances were singularly redeeming. Altogether, though, certain questionable flaws and useless scenes made areas of the plot deflating at best.
As for that plot, there was a touch of suspense. Once you figure it out, the writers try to throw in some plot twists. What became annoying were the stacked alternative endings. When you think you've reached the story's resolution, the film tries to one-up it. It becomes exhausting as several climaxes and wholly contrived twists robbed me of the elation that the film finally ended.
Because I was in such a good mood before watching this film, and because I was hammered by the end of it, I give it a 5 outta 10. Mostly, I believe the marketing must rely on teenage boys' misplaced expectations that the almost-cute heroine might divulge some nudity. In sum, without beer or raging hormones, I don't know why anyone would attempt to last through the entire film. But give it a shot, masochists…
Cinematography and directing? There's nothing to mention except that the director resisted the quick-change, odd-angle editing reminiscent of music videos. As such, the pace of the film was not the horror one might expect (Get it? Horror?). Similarly, none of the performances were singularly redeeming. Altogether, though, certain questionable flaws and useless scenes made areas of the plot deflating at best.
As for that plot, there was a touch of suspense. Once you figure it out, the writers try to throw in some plot twists. What became annoying were the stacked alternative endings. When you think you've reached the story's resolution, the film tries to one-up it. It becomes exhausting as several climaxes and wholly contrived twists robbed me of the elation that the film finally ended.
Because I was in such a good mood before watching this film, and because I was hammered by the end of it, I give it a 5 outta 10. Mostly, I believe the marketing must rely on teenage boys' misplaced expectations that the almost-cute heroine might divulge some nudity. In sum, without beer or raging hormones, I don't know why anyone would attempt to last through the entire film. But give it a shot, masochists…
Masters of Horror: Fair-haired Child
Well, first, there is no such word as "firstly." Second, the Masters of Horror gig gives a noted horror director the opportunity to make a film of about an hour in length, give or take. So, you can't expect a big budget or extremely well-developed stories. You only get a taste, a short story put on film. In the case of "Fair-haired Child" I found the underlying story well done. Unlike most films, you don't guess the second act's climax immediately, and the characters' motivations remain shadowed. That "hmmmm" factor, my favorite aspect of any suspenseful film, was present but not perfect because I really didn't care about any of the characters.
As for the acting, there were no big names involved, which is often refreshing. However, the abilities of the less-than-seasoned cast left a little to be desired at times. As such, the slow development of characters and story may leave some viewers initially bored, if not altogether frustrated. But the novel aspects of the story are worth the patience. You have to keep an open mind on this one, folks.
I'm neutral on the effects, as many were lacking where I wanted them. And the use of flashbacks was as annoying as the typical montages found in flics that lack good pacing. Here, at least, I realize the use of such a mechanism was to hide the proverbial ball, thus heightening the climax. But it would've worked just as well placing that info at the beginning of the film.
Overall, I give it somewhere between a 6 to 6.5 on the 10-scale. No great cinematography, no stand-out performances, but some novelty in the storyline. The pacing is annoying, even if Tank Girl is in it.
As for the acting, there were no big names involved, which is often refreshing. However, the abilities of the less-than-seasoned cast left a little to be desired at times. As such, the slow development of characters and story may leave some viewers initially bored, if not altogether frustrated. But the novel aspects of the story are worth the patience. You have to keep an open mind on this one, folks.
I'm neutral on the effects, as many were lacking where I wanted them. And the use of flashbacks was as annoying as the typical montages found in flics that lack good pacing. Here, at least, I realize the use of such a mechanism was to hide the proverbial ball, thus heightening the climax. But it would've worked just as well placing that info at the beginning of the film.
Overall, I give it somewhere between a 6 to 6.5 on the 10-scale. No great cinematography, no stand-out performances, but some novelty in the storyline. The pacing is annoying, even if Tank Girl is in it.
Aeon Flux
Strange, isn't it, how "Flux" rhymes with "sucks," and that's exactly what this movie does. As a former fan of the cartoon, I can understand how compressing numerous episodes of a lengthy and sometimes confusing storyline into a single, four-hour (that's how long the torture seemed to last) film would prove difficult. Also, I understand the difficulty of determining the proper setting and populating it with the most interesting characters. Therefore, I give accolades for such attempts—wait, did these guys attempt any of that? The movie speaks for itself… with a resounding "No."
Charlise Theron has never been a reliable action film heroine. She proves that ineptitude once again. The stuntwork was incredibly bad, reminding me of Carradine in the old "Kung Fu" series. But at least there was balance: Theron struggled with the dramatic aspects of her role, as well. Thankfully for her, she was not alone, as all parts were poorly written, poorly cast, and poorly acted.
Don’t waste time on this one, unless you ate some bad fish and want to get the trauma over with post-haste. Here’s a summary: bad story, bad cinematography, bad stunts/action, bad acting, and bad directing. I feel like over an hour of my life was taken from me under fraudulent pretenses. Seriously, the cartoon series is available on DVD; don't watch this before the series… or after for that matter. 1 outta 10.
Charlise Theron has never been a reliable action film heroine. She proves that ineptitude once again. The stuntwork was incredibly bad, reminding me of Carradine in the old "Kung Fu" series. But at least there was balance: Theron struggled with the dramatic aspects of her role, as well. Thankfully for her, she was not alone, as all parts were poorly written, poorly cast, and poorly acted.
Don’t waste time on this one, unless you ate some bad fish and want to get the trauma over with post-haste. Here’s a summary: bad story, bad cinematography, bad stunts/action, bad acting, and bad directing. I feel like over an hour of my life was taken from me under fraudulent pretenses. Seriously, the cartoon series is available on DVD; don't watch this before the series… or after for that matter. 1 outta 10.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)