HALLOWEEN II
DIR: Rob Zombie
(2009)
(Great Big Fat Spoilers ensue)
So I just finished watching Rob Zombie's direct follow-up sequel to Halloween; Halloween II, and I must say after all the negative reviews I somewhat feel the need to defend this movie.
First let me start by briefly pointing out the three obvious flaws; The opening dream sequence was way too long, the linked psychosis angle was ridiculous and the introduction of characters only to be killed off is so 20 years ago.
Now with that being said the real purpose of this film should have stayed focused on Laurie's mental well being and for a minute there I thought and hoped that would be the case. Her therapy sessions were the real standout of the story so it shocked me when in the third act all that clever writing had dissipated and what we were left with was the most cliched shit imaginable.
The opening sequence was way too long and would have benefited from shorter pacing, the reveal becomes obvious because of the drawn out length. Although I suppose that may have been the intention, but that's like been handed a wrapped present and being told what it is as you're in the process of opening it.
Laurie picking up the blade at the climax (Yes I'm well aware we were to be convinced she was mentally headed in that direction) was sorry to say but nothing less than stupid only to be shot multiple times without any given orders. And although I liked Sheriff Brackett going after Michael in the barn house lets face it he would have been in absolutely no state to do so after his daughter's brutal murder. (Did she survive? ...again)
As always with his films, the music Rob Zombie incorporated was spot on perfect. The use of Love Hurts during the final sequence was genius, the scene itself makes up for was we just saw minutes ago. This dream-like sequence was one of only two that should have stayed as all the rest of these visions ruined what could have been a well played out straight story, the one other keeper was when a young Michael Myers informs his mother that he had found "Boo." Having his inner-self and mother follow him around really in my opinion was unreasonably distracting and then to have Laurie somehow also see them too, c'mon. Preferably Carpenters excuse of linking the two characters with a curse was far more logical.
Casting was spot on with the one OBVIOUS exception. Why recast the young Michael Myers? He was primarily used just as an unnecessary "ghost" so then why couldn't he have been an older version like say I don't know -- the original actor! To me watching 'the new kid' was very off-putting. I think there was one flashback scene where he needed to be young but not enough to be recast.
The added characters were great - if only they had more screen time. It was a crying shame that they all had to die. Geez, did anyone in the film make it out alive?
Lastly I must close by stating the film's BIGGEST problem: It was not scary! Not even in the slightest. It's just Michael Myers randomly killing people. It didn't even have the much needed feeling of Laurie being stalked. If only in some sane world Zombie could or would re-cut the print making the above changes even if it included some added re-shoots it would so definitely be worth it, because as I hinted at the beginning of this rant: I did not hate this movie.
No rating at this time.
Showing posts with label Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Review. Show all posts
Friday, October 1, 2010
Saturday, July 10, 2010
PREDATORS
DIR: Nimród Antal
(2010)
(Spoilers)
Okay so the gist is as follows...
A moderate group of Earths best bad-ass' are literally dumped on an unknown planet used entirely and specifically as a hunting reserve for the 'Predator' species of alien. In that one sentence alone enter the first two problems with this film.
1. There are too many characters (all of them potentially awesome but implemented only to be killed).
2. It wasn't the 'Predators' home planet.
The movie seemed to try really hard to recreate the 'Assault On Precinct 13' theme of rivals bonding together to fight a common enemy. Which I would have guess Robert Rodriguez borrowed directly from his and Tarantino's 'From Dusk Till Dawn' franchise, though it turns out he wrote the 'Predators' early script before that film. Which leads me to another thing, I had forgotten all about the fact that this is a reworked version of Rodriguez's script (so much so that Rodriguez didn't even receive a writing credit), that to me explains a lot why it didn't have that "edge" I was expecting (such a shame).
I've heard in past unrelated reviews people describing "phoned in performances" (from well known actors) and I never really could grasp that concept as I would personally first blame the script & dialogue. But whilst watching this movie that term really hit home. ALL of the actors in 'Predators' I will say except Adrian Brody gave such boring and unconvincing performances of what should otherwise be kick ass characters. This comment especially becomes relevant regarding the humor; there were so many jokes put in throughout the 106 minutes and I think only one of them actually worked. I had no choice but to cringe every time there was silent reaction to badly delivered punchlines.
A major problem for me was the lighting, why did all of the Predator action scenes have to happen at night? Even after making a point about how long the day lasts on that planet. Many people have criticised the samurai sword fight (do modern day Yakuza outside of the Kill-Bill-Verse still use swordplay)? My problem with it was the choreography and horrendous lighting not the actual concept itself.
For a motion picture where it has been widely stated wanted nothing to do with the AVP films that unfortunately exist and came before, the ending similarly borrows from the final act of 'Alien Vs Predator' albeit with a wasted mud reference to 'Predator.' Working alongside an alien let alone a Predator is so stupid -- The only time this that concept has actually worked was in the brilliant 'District 9.' How the hell does the Predator understand the English language? Brody was barely audible in that scene and it understood him perfectly. I can grasp other higher up positioned of their race understanding (the ones responsible for kidnapping the Prey) but this was just a hunter and a low level bottom of the barrel hunter at that as it turns out the bigger Predators hunt the smaller ones. Stupid.
All of this review has been negative but that doesn't mean I hated the movie I just had very high expectations with Rodriguez's name attached. There was just so much wrong with it that its very hard to ignore. However a lot of the visuals were amazing, the fact that they showed another extra terrestrial species also being hunted was cool. Lawrence Fishburnes crazy character Noland was a nice twist even if his very Matrix-like acting [Matrix being code for sub par] almost ruined the role.
The first act was a 7.5, the second became a 7, then once the credits rolled I really couldn't give this film more than...
6.5/10
(2010)
(Spoilers)
Okay so the gist is as follows...
A moderate group of Earths best bad-ass' are literally dumped on an unknown planet used entirely and specifically as a hunting reserve for the 'Predator' species of alien. In that one sentence alone enter the first two problems with this film.
1. There are too many characters (all of them potentially awesome but implemented only to be killed).
2. It wasn't the 'Predators' home planet.
The movie seemed to try really hard to recreate the 'Assault On Precinct 13' theme of rivals bonding together to fight a common enemy. Which I would have guess Robert Rodriguez borrowed directly from his and Tarantino's 'From Dusk Till Dawn' franchise, though it turns out he wrote the 'Predators' early script before that film. Which leads me to another thing, I had forgotten all about the fact that this is a reworked version of Rodriguez's script (so much so that Rodriguez didn't even receive a writing credit), that to me explains a lot why it didn't have that "edge" I was expecting (such a shame).
I've heard in past unrelated reviews people describing "phoned in performances" (from well known actors) and I never really could grasp that concept as I would personally first blame the script & dialogue. But whilst watching this movie that term really hit home. ALL of the actors in 'Predators' I will say except Adrian Brody gave such boring and unconvincing performances of what should otherwise be kick ass characters. This comment especially becomes relevant regarding the humor; there were so many jokes put in throughout the 106 minutes and I think only one of them actually worked. I had no choice but to cringe every time there was silent reaction to badly delivered punchlines.
A major problem for me was the lighting, why did all of the Predator action scenes have to happen at night? Even after making a point about how long the day lasts on that planet. Many people have criticised the samurai sword fight (do modern day Yakuza outside of the Kill-Bill-Verse still use swordplay)? My problem with it was the choreography and horrendous lighting not the actual concept itself.
For a motion picture where it has been widely stated wanted nothing to do with the AVP films that unfortunately exist and came before, the ending similarly borrows from the final act of 'Alien Vs Predator' albeit with a wasted mud reference to 'Predator.' Working alongside an alien let alone a Predator is so stupid -- The only time this that concept has actually worked was in the brilliant 'District 9.' How the hell does the Predator understand the English language? Brody was barely audible in that scene and it understood him perfectly. I can grasp other higher up positioned of their race understanding (the ones responsible for kidnapping the Prey) but this was just a hunter and a low level bottom of the barrel hunter at that as it turns out the bigger Predators hunt the smaller ones. Stupid.
All of this review has been negative but that doesn't mean I hated the movie I just had very high expectations with Rodriguez's name attached. There was just so much wrong with it that its very hard to ignore. However a lot of the visuals were amazing, the fact that they showed another extra terrestrial species also being hunted was cool. Lawrence Fishburnes crazy character Noland was a nice twist even if his very Matrix-like acting [Matrix being code for sub par] almost ruined the role.
The first act was a 7.5, the second became a 7, then once the credits rolled I really couldn't give this film more than...
6.5/10
Friday, March 5, 2010
TRANSFORMERS
DIR: Michael Bay
(2007)
You know there was a lot of high hopes when Steven Spielberg announced the live action adaptation of Hasbro's much loved cartoon and toy-line 'Transformers.' Little by little we got new information. some good, some bad, some different. Global outrage was heard when Michael Bay was picked to direct, myself included; I thought there and then this project was doomed. Then they started changing the appearance and voices of certain Transformers to geld into this modern world of ours. What was becoming of our hopes?
As it turns out I wouldn't have wanted anyone else to have made the movie, except maybe Spielberg himself. Bay was given a near perfect script, that not even he could stuff up, the visuals were outstanding his action orientated mindset really helped give the audience exactly what they were paying for.
Shia Labeouf plays Sam Witwicky a fast talking, hormone driven teenager who lives only for himself and the hope of getting the girl of his dreams. His dad has just bought him his first car, a completely run down old yellow Camaro, but Sam couldn't be happier as he now has acquired the first step to getting the girl, a ride. Unbeknownst to him however is this isn't any ordinary vehicle, no not even close, you see this car happens to be Bumblebee, an Autobot from Cybertron.
The Autobots (lead by the ever almighty Optimus Prime) and the Decepticons (headed by the evil Megatron) have been at war on their distant home planet for eons and now both have traveled a long way to Earth each trying to find and covet the Allspark, an energized matrix cube able to give it possessor ultimate power being able to create an endless army of Transformers out of inanimate electrical objects. But where the story really comes into its own is with Sam's interaction with not only these sentient aliens but also with Mikaela Banes (the High School love interest) played by the ever so beautiful Megan Fox; their chemistry together onscreen was perfectly expressed.
Sam's parents were absolutely terrifically cast and Josh Duhamels Capt. Lennox character was a nice added perspective to the warring chaos. Having also shown the story from the side of the "hackers" helped to bring the storyline together and blessed us with some nice eye candy in the form of Australian actress Rachael Taylor.
I'm aware a lot of people or 'fanboys' if you will, were upset and/or disappointed with the outcome due to so many details being changed but I just feel that what the writers came up with did the (at the time - dying) franchise justice. Some complaints of my own would involve comments regarding how many of the fast paced action scenes seemed to blur, especially in the final battle where if you were to blink you may miss out on seeing a characters demise. Also too many of the Transformers were silver/chrome which at times becomes annoying in following who's who. Lastly I would have liked to have seen more of Sam's best friend Miles, a character shown extremely briefly and whom gets ditched way too soon IMO.
8/10
(2007)
You know there was a lot of high hopes when Steven Spielberg announced the live action adaptation of Hasbro's much loved cartoon and toy-line 'Transformers.' Little by little we got new information. some good, some bad, some different. Global outrage was heard when Michael Bay was picked to direct, myself included; I thought there and then this project was doomed. Then they started changing the appearance and voices of certain Transformers to geld into this modern world of ours. What was becoming of our hopes?
As it turns out I wouldn't have wanted anyone else to have made the movie, except maybe Spielberg himself. Bay was given a near perfect script, that not even he could stuff up, the visuals were outstanding his action orientated mindset really helped give the audience exactly what they were paying for.
Shia Labeouf plays Sam Witwicky a fast talking, hormone driven teenager who lives only for himself and the hope of getting the girl of his dreams. His dad has just bought him his first car, a completely run down old yellow Camaro, but Sam couldn't be happier as he now has acquired the first step to getting the girl, a ride. Unbeknownst to him however is this isn't any ordinary vehicle, no not even close, you see this car happens to be Bumblebee, an Autobot from Cybertron.
The Autobots (lead by the ever almighty Optimus Prime) and the Decepticons (headed by the evil Megatron) have been at war on their distant home planet for eons and now both have traveled a long way to Earth each trying to find and covet the Allspark, an energized matrix cube able to give it possessor ultimate power being able to create an endless army of Transformers out of inanimate electrical objects. But where the story really comes into its own is with Sam's interaction with not only these sentient aliens but also with Mikaela Banes (the High School love interest) played by the ever so beautiful Megan Fox; their chemistry together onscreen was perfectly expressed.
Sam's parents were absolutely terrifically cast and Josh Duhamels Capt. Lennox character was a nice added perspective to the warring chaos. Having also shown the story from the side of the "hackers" helped to bring the storyline together and blessed us with some nice eye candy in the form of Australian actress Rachael Taylor.
I'm aware a lot of people or 'fanboys' if you will, were upset and/or disappointed with the outcome due to so many details being changed but I just feel that what the writers came up with did the (at the time - dying) franchise justice. Some complaints of my own would involve comments regarding how many of the fast paced action scenes seemed to blur, especially in the final battle where if you were to blink you may miss out on seeing a characters demise. Also too many of the Transformers were silver/chrome which at times becomes annoying in following who's who. Lastly I would have liked to have seen more of Sam's best friend Miles, a character shown extremely briefly and whom gets ditched way too soon IMO.
8/10
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
THE ROAD
DIR: John Hillcoat
(2009)
'The Road' is just that; a bleak and endless road, a journey for self preservation in the midst of the uncontrollable breakdown of civility and civilisation. The post-apocalyptic world in which we're unfairly presented offers little to no redemption for the 'good people.' Between the destructive nature of what can only be described as a literal Hell on Earth are the survivors, specifically a young boy and his ever endearing protective father who offers up this to say of his only son: "If he is not the word of God, then God never spoke."
Adapted from the novel of the same title by the author of 'No Country For Old Men' Cormac McCarthy, we are shown at least to me realistically what would happen if there was no food, little shelter, and all wildlife and crops had been wiped completely from the world. What is one left to do, it all seems to come down to instinct: survive. But why? Why bother living in such a ridiculous existence? Many did give up, and what was the biggest emotional impact for me, an exact and pure example of this is shown midway in the film. Heading south the father and his son are determined to reach the coast just in the hope of some sort of salvation being there. But along the way all the find is hardship, they are constantly watching their backs. Many have turned to cannibalism to survive, gangs of 'bad people' roam the landscape looking for people to murder, rape and devour. It is shown many times that suicide is the preferred option over capture.
'The Road' features two of the best actors in Hollywood, Viggo Mortensen and Charlize Theron. Mortensen's performance is outstanding, whereas Charlize Theron's role was way to short for any real praise. This is the kind of film that should have been made 10 - 15 years ago but luckily provides a refreshing experience amongst the backwards step Hollywood has seemed to have taken in recent years. Though, that's not to say there isn't an abundance of good films being released just that I should be able to sit back and enjoy a 2 hour slow moving drama about the day to day struggle of survival and this is exactly what I got.
Before viewing this film I was made aware of a lot of religious elements. It fits really well within the context and in my opinion is not overdone as I was lead to believe, and actually challenges the ideas of spirituality. It shows us that man's belief in God and an afterlife is all he has left when faced with death and destruction. And without such hope there is nothing, a justification the 'bad people' would surely need.
Many times during the screening I couldn't help but feel correlations between this and M. Night Shyamalan's 'The Happening' which I am aware many despise. But I guess what appears to be the main difference is that instead of nature being intent on killing humans, 'The Road' offers us a movie in which nature is killing itself.
There isn't much to take away from this movie, but that's not a bad thing considering the subject matter. What we are given is an accurate portrayal of what would happen if you were to wake up early, look out your window and witnessed Armageddon.
7/10
(2009)
'The Road' is just that; a bleak and endless road, a journey for self preservation in the midst of the uncontrollable breakdown of civility and civilisation. The post-apocalyptic world in which we're unfairly presented offers little to no redemption for the 'good people.' Between the destructive nature of what can only be described as a literal Hell on Earth are the survivors, specifically a young boy and his ever endearing protective father who offers up this to say of his only son: "If he is not the word of God, then God never spoke."
Adapted from the novel of the same title by the author of 'No Country For Old Men' Cormac McCarthy, we are shown at least to me realistically what would happen if there was no food, little shelter, and all wildlife and crops had been wiped completely from the world. What is one left to do, it all seems to come down to instinct: survive. But why? Why bother living in such a ridiculous existence? Many did give up, and what was the biggest emotional impact for me, an exact and pure example of this is shown midway in the film. Heading south the father and his son are determined to reach the coast just in the hope of some sort of salvation being there. But along the way all the find is hardship, they are constantly watching their backs. Many have turned to cannibalism to survive, gangs of 'bad people' roam the landscape looking for people to murder, rape and devour. It is shown many times that suicide is the preferred option over capture.
'The Road' features two of the best actors in Hollywood, Viggo Mortensen and Charlize Theron. Mortensen's performance is outstanding, whereas Charlize Theron's role was way to short for any real praise. This is the kind of film that should have been made 10 - 15 years ago but luckily provides a refreshing experience amongst the backwards step Hollywood has seemed to have taken in recent years. Though, that's not to say there isn't an abundance of good films being released just that I should be able to sit back and enjoy a 2 hour slow moving drama about the day to day struggle of survival and this is exactly what I got.
Before viewing this film I was made aware of a lot of religious elements. It fits really well within the context and in my opinion is not overdone as I was lead to believe, and actually challenges the ideas of spirituality. It shows us that man's belief in God and an afterlife is all he has left when faced with death and destruction. And without such hope there is nothing, a justification the 'bad people' would surely need.
Many times during the screening I couldn't help but feel correlations between this and M. Night Shyamalan's 'The Happening' which I am aware many despise. But I guess what appears to be the main difference is that instead of nature being intent on killing humans, 'The Road' offers us a movie in which nature is killing itself.
There isn't much to take away from this movie, but that's not a bad thing considering the subject matter. What we are given is an accurate portrayal of what would happen if you were to wake up early, look out your window and witnessed Armageddon.
7/10
Monday, March 1, 2010
LEON (THE PROFESSIONAL)
DIR: Luc Besson
(1994)
Every once and a while a little piece of perfection comes along, a single dose of immaculate creativity mixed in with some sort of archaic yet neo-realism which only exists in the smile or teardrop or even to sound contradictory, lifeless existence that is presented onscreen (yes, even the positioning of a dead body should be correctly mastered). Luc Besson has evidently provided us with a unique undertaking that is delivered with a no holds barred approach.
Cinematic magic, awesome storytelling and last but not least the most brilliant acting I have ever seen coming from a young Natalie Portman. All three have been gracefully given to the world in this poetic French effort better known internationally outside of Europe as 'The Professional.'
I am aware that alot of people like to criticise this masterpiece for a number of obscene reasons... for example Gary Oldman's "overacting" and disbelief regarding any given circumstances the movie may rely on. I personally believe his performance to be spot on for the character in which he plays; unfortunately I'll choose not to go into it as to not give away a crucial spoiler that presents itself early on in the film.
Now... onto some criticism of my own. Oh wait I have none. The only movie in my opinion next to Terminator 2 to have been made so amazingly well that every department technical or otherwise is complete, absolute and flawless.
As briefly mentioned above, it is a French production however the film is set in New York City. Leon an immigrant from Italy inadvertently becomes the protector and mentor of Mathilda, a naive yet highly intelligent young girl who loses everything in the span of about 10 minutes. He himself is a professional "cleaner" and lone wolf who assassinates targets for money and has no interest in caring for this child when she reaches out to him for help, yet through a short period of time somehow becomes her saviour and greatest hero. Mathilda looks up to Leon, he is the family she never felt she had, he is everything to her and slowly she becomes very close to him also.
'Leon' is essentially greatly inspired thematically by Besson's former masterpiece 'Nikita.' It replaces the young chaotic adult with a child, but offers us the opportunity to witness how far someone is willing to go once they have lost absolutely everything. Mathilda isn't old enough to fully understand the concept of love and yet she wants to learn to kill.
This is the kind of film Hollywood could never conceptually pull off even in their wildest efforts. The screenplay is unmatched; the dialogue and depth within the main characters is outstanding, and the directing beautifully compliments it all. I can honestly say that if 'Leon' were to have been an American production it would definitely have had so much importance and depth removed and/or replaced with less controversial elements. The fact that it was cut for an American audience is proof enough that it could never (as is) have been a successful Hollywood production with results on the same level.
The casting in this film is superb. The movie no doubt will have come out alot differently if it were not for the three key principal actors; the unmatched Jean Reno, the unforgivable Gary Oldman and the everlasting important grace of Natalie Portman. Lastly, Eric Serra's music fits superbly well within context and greatly compliments the displayed emotions throughout as it always does in Besson's films.
Every time you watch this film you will most certainly discover something new. Perfectly clocking in at over 2 hours you will find it impossible to find any better in the genre.
10/10
(1994)
Every once and a while a little piece of perfection comes along, a single dose of immaculate creativity mixed in with some sort of archaic yet neo-realism which only exists in the smile or teardrop or even to sound contradictory, lifeless existence that is presented onscreen (yes, even the positioning of a dead body should be correctly mastered). Luc Besson has evidently provided us with a unique undertaking that is delivered with a no holds barred approach.
Cinematic magic, awesome storytelling and last but not least the most brilliant acting I have ever seen coming from a young Natalie Portman. All three have been gracefully given to the world in this poetic French effort better known internationally outside of Europe as 'The Professional.'
I am aware that alot of people like to criticise this masterpiece for a number of obscene reasons... for example Gary Oldman's "overacting" and disbelief regarding any given circumstances the movie may rely on. I personally believe his performance to be spot on for the character in which he plays; unfortunately I'll choose not to go into it as to not give away a crucial spoiler that presents itself early on in the film.
Now... onto some criticism of my own. Oh wait I have none. The only movie in my opinion next to Terminator 2 to have been made so amazingly well that every department technical or otherwise is complete, absolute and flawless.
As briefly mentioned above, it is a French production however the film is set in New York City. Leon an immigrant from Italy inadvertently becomes the protector and mentor of Mathilda, a naive yet highly intelligent young girl who loses everything in the span of about 10 minutes. He himself is a professional "cleaner" and lone wolf who assassinates targets for money and has no interest in caring for this child when she reaches out to him for help, yet through a short period of time somehow becomes her saviour and greatest hero. Mathilda looks up to Leon, he is the family she never felt she had, he is everything to her and slowly she becomes very close to him also.
'Leon' is essentially greatly inspired thematically by Besson's former masterpiece 'Nikita.' It replaces the young chaotic adult with a child, but offers us the opportunity to witness how far someone is willing to go once they have lost absolutely everything. Mathilda isn't old enough to fully understand the concept of love and yet she wants to learn to kill.
This is the kind of film Hollywood could never conceptually pull off even in their wildest efforts. The screenplay is unmatched; the dialogue and depth within the main characters is outstanding, and the directing beautifully compliments it all. I can honestly say that if 'Leon' were to have been an American production it would definitely have had so much importance and depth removed and/or replaced with less controversial elements. The fact that it was cut for an American audience is proof enough that it could never (as is) have been a successful Hollywood production with results on the same level.
The casting in this film is superb. The movie no doubt will have come out alot differently if it were not for the three key principal actors; the unmatched Jean Reno, the unforgivable Gary Oldman and the everlasting important grace of Natalie Portman. Lastly, Eric Serra's music fits superbly well within context and greatly compliments the displayed emotions throughout as it always does in Besson's films.
Every time you watch this film you will most certainly discover something new. Perfectly clocking in at over 2 hours you will find it impossible to find any better in the genre.
10/10
Sunday, February 28, 2010
HOUSE OF THE DEVIL
DIR: Ti West
(2009)
"People make mistakes, it happens." Well not in this case they don't Ti West has served up a dish of 80's throwbacks to the extreme. Starting with the trailer and poster, House Of The Devil embarks on a whole bunch of homages to the horror genre. Completely unoriginal though somehow satisfying, we get something special. In our current climate of slasher films and dare I say 'torture porn' this film offers the viewer a toned down suspenseful period piece; if one didn't know any better they would 100% believe what they were watching was made in the 1980's as absolutely everything in regards to that detail is perfected.
Samantha Hughes is a broke sophomore college student who desperately needs to come up with some money to move out of her shared dorm room and into the perfect place for her. She comes across a 'Baby $itter' flyer and answers the ad. The residence in question is situated out in the sticks, getting there she learns the job is not exactly as it seems and despite the pressured efforts of her best friend to leave, the generous payment is too much to refuse. It's the night of the big lunar eclipse and what begins as fairly innocent turns into something completely not.
From the television news presentation to the props, the hair, and the clothing, the dialogue and phrases used, the music and vehicles, everything is perfectly accounted for in terms of 1980's continuity. So much design has gone into the production of this film and its for good reason; if House Of The Devil was set in modern times it wouldn't have the same viewing pleasure and perhaps even be regarded as rubbish, mainly because as horror fans we have seen it done so many time before. Because of this gimmick we are able to accept the storyline and overall package given instead of it being just another lame knock off and/or remake.
As a horror fan I believe we should never know where the story is leading and with this we immediately have an understanding and a hope where is shouldn't lead and that's exactly where the movie makes a major mistake, the final act is too cornball and predictable. But I guess works fine as a film making the Grindhouse circuit in the era its set in.
House Of The Devil gives us exactly what Rob Zombie has been thriving to achieve but Ti West is able to pull it off so much better in that regard.
6.5/10
(2009)
"People make mistakes, it happens." Well not in this case they don't Ti West has served up a dish of 80's throwbacks to the extreme. Starting with the trailer and poster, House Of The Devil embarks on a whole bunch of homages to the horror genre. Completely unoriginal though somehow satisfying, we get something special. In our current climate of slasher films and dare I say 'torture porn' this film offers the viewer a toned down suspenseful period piece; if one didn't know any better they would 100% believe what they were watching was made in the 1980's as absolutely everything in regards to that detail is perfected.
Samantha Hughes is a broke sophomore college student who desperately needs to come up with some money to move out of her shared dorm room and into the perfect place for her. She comes across a 'Baby $itter' flyer and answers the ad. The residence in question is situated out in the sticks, getting there she learns the job is not exactly as it seems and despite the pressured efforts of her best friend to leave, the generous payment is too much to refuse. It's the night of the big lunar eclipse and what begins as fairly innocent turns into something completely not.
From the television news presentation to the props, the hair, and the clothing, the dialogue and phrases used, the music and vehicles, everything is perfectly accounted for in terms of 1980's continuity. So much design has gone into the production of this film and its for good reason; if House Of The Devil was set in modern times it wouldn't have the same viewing pleasure and perhaps even be regarded as rubbish, mainly because as horror fans we have seen it done so many time before. Because of this gimmick we are able to accept the storyline and overall package given instead of it being just another lame knock off and/or remake.
As a horror fan I believe we should never know where the story is leading and with this we immediately have an understanding and a hope where is shouldn't lead and that's exactly where the movie makes a major mistake, the final act is too cornball and predictable. But I guess works fine as a film making the Grindhouse circuit in the era its set in.
House Of The Devil gives us exactly what Rob Zombie has been thriving to achieve but Ti West is able to pull it off so much better in that regard.
6.5/10
SHUTTER ISLAND
DIR: Martin Scorsese
(2010)
When everything in your life is going wrong and you feel like nothing is worthwhile anymore there is always something that is concrete and that something is a good film. Shutter Island is an example of a damn good film, just when you think cinema has gone into a downward spiral along comes a fantastic filmmaker to address the wrongs with just one masterful right.
Now to start Shutter Island is not an original idea as it is based on a popular book by Dennis Lehane and the idea of insanity presented in this context has been shown in similar degrees specifically as a staple episode in genre based television shows making it arguably the only real setback if there ever needs to be one. Because of this you are able to dissect the film as it plays out and are guaranteed one of the possible twists you've settled on will be proven true at the climax of the film. However with that being said there are only two plausible outcomes for conclusion and in my opinion its made very clear that the one presented is done so without doubt, no matter what ambiguity the audience may lust for. I've read so many times of how the ending is unclear but it's simply not true, having not read the novel I can't comment on its interpretation but what we are given onscreen is a solid outcome.
The film opens with the emerging image of a ferry traveling through some amazingly heavy mist. Leonardo DiCaprio stars as U.S. Marshal Edward "Teddy" Daniels who is sickly aboard the crossing ferry with his newly appointed partner U.S. Marshal Chuck Aule played by Mark Ruffalo. They are headed to the Asylum located on Shutter Island. A patient by the name of Rachel Solando has gone missing and it is up to these two men to find her. As the story progresses and unfolds it is made clear that Teddy has other motivations for being on the island. Not only that but another mystery is presented in the clue of two questions, one of which suggests a 67th unexplained patient.
Scorsese allows us to not only watch the film but to also take a journey and at times allows us to feel like a character riding alongside the chaos. He's able to use much respected old-school basic camerawork (a technique that so many filmmakers these days forget to use, something we can all blame The Matrix for) which works with amazing effect to draw us into the nightmare of Shutter Island. Unfortunately I will admit there are two noticeable scenes that stick out due to obvious unnecessary CGI which is disappointing because I really can't understand what prompted its use. What should be applauded is the closeness to Kubrick's directorial style; I swore at many times along the way I felt like I was watching a lost Kubrick masterpiece. The cinematography is amazing a true pleasure for the eyes; in a gloomy kind of way and the soundtrack fits superbly well and even that too is minimal and luckily not overused.
There are some disturbing scenes shown in the form of flashbacks and/or dreams. They begin as a clever way of confusing the audience into believing a certain story element but then come together very clearly to show the basis of a characters insanity and their willingness to accept a substituted reality.
Shutter Island admittedly is not for everyone, it is a long, not slow but rather drawn out structural film, it takes itself very seriously which in this case is actually a good thing. One thing alot of people may not be able to grasp is that about halfway through the story changes alot of its foundry details which then too get muddled and re-clarified in the last leg of viewing. But to judge that as bad film making is simply lazy, something humans beings are well known for doing; dismiss anything they are unable to comprehend.
But alas this movie asks us only one question; What is real?
8.5/10
(2010)
When everything in your life is going wrong and you feel like nothing is worthwhile anymore there is always something that is concrete and that something is a good film. Shutter Island is an example of a damn good film, just when you think cinema has gone into a downward spiral along comes a fantastic filmmaker to address the wrongs with just one masterful right.
Now to start Shutter Island is not an original idea as it is based on a popular book by Dennis Lehane and the idea of insanity presented in this context has been shown in similar degrees specifically as a staple episode in genre based television shows making it arguably the only real setback if there ever needs to be one. Because of this you are able to dissect the film as it plays out and are guaranteed one of the possible twists you've settled on will be proven true at the climax of the film. However with that being said there are only two plausible outcomes for conclusion and in my opinion its made very clear that the one presented is done so without doubt, no matter what ambiguity the audience may lust for. I've read so many times of how the ending is unclear but it's simply not true, having not read the novel I can't comment on its interpretation but what we are given onscreen is a solid outcome.
The film opens with the emerging image of a ferry traveling through some amazingly heavy mist. Leonardo DiCaprio stars as U.S. Marshal Edward "Teddy" Daniels who is sickly aboard the crossing ferry with his newly appointed partner U.S. Marshal Chuck Aule played by Mark Ruffalo. They are headed to the Asylum located on Shutter Island. A patient by the name of Rachel Solando has gone missing and it is up to these two men to find her. As the story progresses and unfolds it is made clear that Teddy has other motivations for being on the island. Not only that but another mystery is presented in the clue of two questions, one of which suggests a 67th unexplained patient.
Scorsese allows us to not only watch the film but to also take a journey and at times allows us to feel like a character riding alongside the chaos. He's able to use much respected old-school basic camerawork (a technique that so many filmmakers these days forget to use, something we can all blame The Matrix for) which works with amazing effect to draw us into the nightmare of Shutter Island. Unfortunately I will admit there are two noticeable scenes that stick out due to obvious unnecessary CGI which is disappointing because I really can't understand what prompted its use. What should be applauded is the closeness to Kubrick's directorial style; I swore at many times along the way I felt like I was watching a lost Kubrick masterpiece. The cinematography is amazing a true pleasure for the eyes; in a gloomy kind of way and the soundtrack fits superbly well and even that too is minimal and luckily not overused.
There are some disturbing scenes shown in the form of flashbacks and/or dreams. They begin as a clever way of confusing the audience into believing a certain story element but then come together very clearly to show the basis of a characters insanity and their willingness to accept a substituted reality.
Shutter Island admittedly is not for everyone, it is a long, not slow but rather drawn out structural film, it takes itself very seriously which in this case is actually a good thing. One thing alot of people may not be able to grasp is that about halfway through the story changes alot of its foundry details which then too get muddled and re-clarified in the last leg of viewing. But to judge that as bad film making is simply lazy, something humans beings are well known for doing; dismiss anything they are unable to comprehend.
But alas this movie asks us only one question; What is real?
8.5/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)