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.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
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)