This movie was just funny. It had a decent plot line and some great gags to fill it in. The jokes were just isolated, but completely ingrained into the storyline making them even funnier than they would be otherwise. It had some great costumes from Jim Henson's creature shop, and some clever and amusing twists to the plot as we traveled along.
My only complaints were that the main character, on two occasions, made some decisions that rested more with moving the plot than what his character would do. It would have better served the character for him to have been dragged away at the point where he just ran when the girl was captured. It just felt wrong.
The other was near the end when he chose to enter the final structure where I would have felt better had he been more hesitant and wanted to return to the others. I just felt his willingly going in was like abandoning everyone. Granted all this worked out, but again, it seemed odd.
The only other hiccup was an importance stressed on carrying a towel, but the reasoning behind this was never really explained. It is used a couple of times, but anything could have conceivably been used. The bad guys seemed afraid of a towel for some reason, but it seems a small thing to carry a towel to defend against one race.
Other than that, good show. Got a kick out of the Point of View Gun and the Improbability Drive.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Rings -- 2005
This was a short feature included on the Ring Two Unrated DVD. This short totally measures up the The Ring. It has the same level of creepiness and fear instilled in it, probably since it has the same central plot....but with a big twist.
If you have not watched The Ring or don't know the solution Rachel discovered at the end, then this will spoil it. If you have seen it, don't care to, or don't mind knowing, consider yourself warned and read on.
As a result of having to make a copy and make someone else watch it and so on, these Ring clubs have developed around the country. Well, this kid watches the tape for someone else he know to save their life, but they dare him to last until Day 7. They tell him to video everything he sees and diary everything that happens so they can know too. Well, as he goes through the week, he has someone to show the tape to so he can live.
Watching it all play out and knowing the consequences of his dangerous game makes this short a wild ride to watch. If you haven't seen the Ring, though, it won't make any sense at all. He surfs other internet Ring groups and learns more about what he is in for.
I won't give it away, but this short lead directly into the teaser of The Ring Two, so you can watch this short first and lead it into the Ring Two and it fits perfect. This short is worth the acquiring of the DVD.
If you have not watched The Ring or don't know the solution Rachel discovered at the end, then this will spoil it. If you have seen it, don't care to, or don't mind knowing, consider yourself warned and read on.
As a result of having to make a copy and make someone else watch it and so on, these Ring clubs have developed around the country. Well, this kid watches the tape for someone else he know to save their life, but they dare him to last until Day 7. They tell him to video everything he sees and diary everything that happens so they can know too. Well, as he goes through the week, he has someone to show the tape to so he can live.
Watching it all play out and knowing the consequences of his dangerous game makes this short a wild ride to watch. If you haven't seen the Ring, though, it won't make any sense at all. He surfs other internet Ring groups and learns more about what he is in for.
I won't give it away, but this short lead directly into the teaser of The Ring Two, so you can watch this short first and lead it into the Ring Two and it fits perfect. This short is worth the acquiring of the DVD.
Hitch -- 2005 -- PG-13
Through the Queen, I was subjected to this film whose trailers did not paint a promising picture. I was pleasantly surprised, though with a cleverly constructed chick flick with well-rounded characters and individual motivations and stories.
Early on, I was getting lost in the multitude of plots, and I worried they were trying to do too much. However, it all came together as we shot forward and the conflicts reached a satisfying height and resolution. All in all, one of the better romantic comedites I've seen in awhile.
Early on, I was getting lost in the multitude of plots, and I worried they were trying to do too much. However, it all came together as we shot forward and the conflicts reached a satisfying height and resolution. All in all, one of the better romantic comedites I've seen in awhile.
The Ring Two -- 2005 -- PG-13
I watched the Unrated Edition. As a sequel this poor film has to stand up to the sheer creepiness of the original and when compared, it pales. However, when considered as its own film, its actually pretty good. It does what so few sequels do, and that is take the old plot on a new ride. It handles the characters from the original and allows them continued development. It creates a really creepy atmosphere, and has its own share of scares and chills. It has good momentum throughout the movie, good development, and enough intrigue to keep you wondering without being annoyed that you don't know what is going on for most of the film.
It has some weak points, though. One is this elaborate deer attack that once you know what is going on (and watch the making of video that explains it) makes sense, but in the context of the film, really loses you. They explain that the deer react to Samara's presence, and any setup for this (even a barking dog beforehand) would have helped. A similar issue occurred in the Ring with a horse going crazy, so it works, but it never gets a sufficient explanation in this film.
The other problem is what I call Forced Conflict. This usually occurs with characters who like asking lots of questions, like detectives or doctors. This film has a psychiatrist who asked perfectly reasonable questions that the character could have simply answered to avoid all ramifications. Instead, the character clams up and refuses to answer even the simplest question: "Did you hit your son?" Why not answer this with a truthful resounding no? What does she say? "I want you to leave." To make this forced conflict even worse, the psychiatrist locks the character in her office to detain her for a moment while she gets coffee. The psychiatrist returns moments later to find the character escaped out the window. Can anyone say "You just incriminated yourself"?
This aside, it is a passable film when allowed to stand on its own. When placed aside the original, it doesn't measure up and feels like a sequel.
It has some weak points, though. One is this elaborate deer attack that once you know what is going on (and watch the making of video that explains it) makes sense, but in the context of the film, really loses you. They explain that the deer react to Samara's presence, and any setup for this (even a barking dog beforehand) would have helped. A similar issue occurred in the Ring with a horse going crazy, so it works, but it never gets a sufficient explanation in this film.
The other problem is what I call Forced Conflict. This usually occurs with characters who like asking lots of questions, like detectives or doctors. This film has a psychiatrist who asked perfectly reasonable questions that the character could have simply answered to avoid all ramifications. Instead, the character clams up and refuses to answer even the simplest question: "Did you hit your son?" Why not answer this with a truthful resounding no? What does she say? "I want you to leave."
This aside, it is a passable film when allowed to stand on its own. When placed aside the original, it doesn't measure up and feels like a sequel.
Batman Begins -- 2005 -- PG-13
The revival of the Batman franchise by taking us back to Batman's roots and tweaking them to be exciting. A LOT goes on in this film from Bruce Wayne trying to learn who he is to his return to Gotham to his antics around town before discovering what he needs to "be" Batman. To survive the trek from Bruce to Batman, though, takes some patience as it doesn't happen for the first hour of the movie.
The only disappointment is the attempted inclusion of a Batman villain, Scarecrow. When he was there, he was frightening, but he was way underused and never acheived any measure of being threatening. And his "defeat" was nothing short of shameful (he wasn't beaten by the bat). The real villain was very good, however, and Scarecrow could have been dropped entirely, and we would have lost nothing.
Don't get this film mixed up with the four that have come before. The implications here are that we're gratefully starting the franchise over (and forgetting about that Batman & Robin debacle). Unlike Burton's Batman film from 1988, Mr. and Mrs. Wayne were killed by a rogue hoodlum, just like they were in the comic books. There is an implication of a sequel that may include the Joker.
It was a very good film overall, and one of the best super hero films to come out.
The only disappointment is the attempted inclusion of a Batman villain, Scarecrow. When he was there, he was frightening, but he was way underused and never acheived any measure of being threatening. And his "defeat" was nothing short of shameful (he wasn't beaten by the bat). The real villain was very good, however, and Scarecrow could have been dropped entirely, and we would have lost nothing.
Don't get this film mixed up with the four that have come before. The implications here are that we're gratefully starting the franchise over (and forgetting about that Batman & Robin debacle). Unlike Burton's Batman film from 1988, Mr. and Mrs. Wayne were killed by a rogue hoodlum, just like they were in the comic books. There is an implication of a sequel that may include the Joker.
It was a very good film overall, and one of the best super hero films to come out.
Ultraviolet -- 2006 -- PG-13
This was a film with a decent premise done in by a bad script. The effects were clever enough but a little on the low budget side. The fights were well-choreographed, but strangely, completely blood-free.
When I first read the synopsis of this movie, I blanched. The plot seemed similar to something I had written and that I'm rather proud of. However, a weak script, hole-ridden storyline, and general cheesy-ness have quelled my concerns about this little film usurping my eventual domination of the genre.
My major problem was a lot of stuff that just didn't make any sense. Apparently whatever is going on makes perfect sense to those on the inside, but to me, I got lost in the shuffle. They figure out this kid Violet is toting around is supposed to be able to kill off the Hemophages (the vampire type people). Well, the plot moves from this to weirder places and then off to somewhere where I got lost. Sheis supposed to have 36 hours to live, and not only does she survive longer than that, she survives beyond the death or something, and I don't know why. The kid dies, then lives. I don't know why. Violet cries tears which are suppose to mean something. I have no idea what they mean.
The fight sequences are overdone, and waaay overacted. They were mostly laughable.
The characters are cardboard cutouts there to jump through the hoops the plot provides. They have no apparent motivation. Whatever the point to this movie was, it got lost somewhere after, oh, it was conceived.
It is apparently based on a comic book character. Perhaps this is a case of fanboy mania where those who have read the comics understand the movie, and the rest of us...well, we're out of the loop.
When I first read the synopsis of this movie, I blanched. The plot seemed similar to something I had written and that I'm rather proud of. However, a weak script, hole-ridden storyline, and general cheesy-ness have quelled my concerns about this little film usurping my eventual domination of the genre.
My major problem was a lot of stuff that just didn't make any sense. Apparently whatever is going on makes perfect sense to those on the inside, but to me, I got lost in the shuffle. They figure out this kid Violet is toting around is supposed to be able to kill off the Hemophages (the vampire type people). Well, the plot moves from this to weirder places and then off to somewhere where I got lost. Sheis supposed to have 36 hours to live, and not only does she survive longer than that, she survives beyond the death or something, and I don't know why. The kid dies, then lives. I don't know why. Violet cries tears which are suppose to mean something. I have no idea what they mean.
The fight sequences are overdone, and waaay overacted. They were mostly laughable.
The characters are cardboard cutouts there to jump through the hoops the plot provides. They have no apparent motivation. Whatever the point to this movie was, it got lost somewhere after, oh, it was conceived.
It is apparently based on a comic book character. Perhaps this is a case of fanboy mania where those who have read the comics understand the movie, and the rest of us...well, we're out of the loop.
Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children - 2005 - PG-13
I saw a preview for this film, and when I saw the title, I thought they were putting me on and advertising a video game. It looked pretty neat from the trailer, and upon discovering it was a movie, I had to see it.
The best part of this film is the animation. It's CG like Pixar and Dreamworks are famous for, but this animation kicks both of those studios' butts when it comes to the CG work. It is absolutely incredible. Realism is beyond compare for computer animation. It's one of those that you must see to believe.
This medium, of course, allowed for some amazing action sequences. The opening motorcycle chase was just incredible. There was also a one on one melee in a gutted church that was rather good as well. Lots of great shots that were nothing short of picturesque while some high speed this and that went on in front of it. Just a feast for the eyes.
This is, however, where the good part ends.
This thing is based on a video game, and I can only guess it translated well. There was a ton of exposition running non-stop from one end to the other to make sure the audience had a clue as to what was going on. This means that the character development was almost completely sacrificed. They tried to squeeze too much into their running time, so elements of the plot seemed odd or out of place at several moments.
Then, comes the friends of the main character. Who the heck are these guys? We go from ex-soldier guy with skill to these superheroes with no introduction. They come into the story completely out of no where like a deux ex machina finish to a large monster (who also came out of no where) in the middle of the film.
Then, it turns out the main villain is someone who does not exist until certain requirements are fulfilled. It was a neat final battle, but the final resolution escaped me.
I can see fans of the game throughly enjoying and understanding this film, but this is another that for me, who watches the movie and expects to understand, I got lost in the overwhelming plot laid out here.
The best part of this film is the animation. It's CG like Pixar and Dreamworks are famous for, but this animation kicks both of those studios' butts when it comes to the CG work. It is absolutely incredible. Realism is beyond compare for computer animation. It's one of those that you must see to believe.
This medium, of course, allowed for some amazing action sequences. The opening motorcycle chase was just incredible. There was also a one on one melee in a gutted church that was rather good as well. Lots of great shots that were nothing short of picturesque while some high speed this and that went on in front of it. Just a feast for the eyes.
This is, however, where the good part ends.
This thing is based on a video game, and I can only guess it translated well. There was a ton of exposition running non-stop from one end to the other to make sure the audience had a clue as to what was going on. This means that the character development was almost completely sacrificed. They tried to squeeze too much into their running time, so elements of the plot seemed odd or out of place at several moments.
Then, comes the friends of the main character. Who the heck are these guys? We go from ex-soldier guy with skill to these superheroes with no introduction. They come into the story completely out of no where like a deux ex machina finish to a large monster (who also came out of no where) in the middle of the film.
Then, it turns out the main villain is someone who does not exist until certain requirements are fulfilled. It was a neat final battle, but the final resolution escaped me.
I can see fans of the game throughly enjoying and understanding this film, but this is another that for me, who watches the movie and expects to understand, I got lost in the overwhelming plot laid out here.
Final Destination -- 2000 -- R
This film has probably one of the cleverest premises in recent history for a horror movie. It was actually original. What if you had a premonition of your own death and avoided it? The answer plays out in this film where death does not like to be interrupted in his plan and the survivors of a horrific plane crash are summarily killed in a variety of "accidental" ways.
The boy who saw the accident which should have killed them is ushered off a plane when he declares that it will explode on takeoff. He and several others are in the waiting area when the plane actually does explode killing everyone on board and traumatizing those remaining. Just when they think it's all over, the survivors begin to die as well.
The death sequences (not to be morbid) are extremely inventive. Since we are not dealing with a physical force, but one that is supposed to be supernatural and controlling the fates of everyone, the potential for creative sequences is very much there. Every once of these things could be well labeled a freak accident, since the chances of most of these actually happening in real life is slim to none.
One of the more creative: a woman is drying her hands and lays the cloth on a knife block. She is boiling water for tea and pours the water into a mug. She flips out whe she realizes the saying on mug has emotional impact. She dumps the hot water and grabs vodka from the freezer. Well, this causes the mug to crack and the vodka to leak out. She walks across the room with the mug in hand and adjusts something behind a computer monitor (I forget what this was, but it made sense). The vodka trickles out of the mug and down into the computer monitor. She continues fooling with whatever next to the monitor for awhile. Well, the vodka gets into the electronics, creates a short circuit, and the monitor explodes. She is cut by the flying glass. Then, the flames from the exploding monitor ignites the vodka trail on the floor leading into the kitchen. Now the stove is on fire. She makes her way into the kitchen to put out the fire and collapses from the blood loss. She looks up and sees a cloth to help stop the flow of blood. What's the cloth on? The knife block. Tug on the cloth. Knife block comes down and thunk! Knife in chest. But wait, she's still alive. Our boy comes to help her. The stove blows up and knocks a dining room chair over to push the knife in. Now she's dead.
While not all of the deaths show that level of creativity, there are many that do, and the final showdown is not to be missed since it doesn't get more unlikely than that, and yet well within the rules of the film.
Definitely a recommended one for its creativity, originality, and even rewatchability.
The boy who saw the accident which should have killed them is ushered off a plane when he declares that it will explode on takeoff. He and several others are in the waiting area when the plane actually does explode killing everyone on board and traumatizing those remaining. Just when they think it's all over, the survivors begin to die as well.
The death sequences (not to be morbid) are extremely inventive. Since we are not dealing with a physical force, but one that is supposed to be supernatural and controlling the fates of everyone, the potential for creative sequences is very much there. Every once of these things could be well labeled a freak accident, since the chances of most of these actually happening in real life is slim to none.
One of the more creative: a woman is drying her hands and lays the cloth on a knife block. She is boiling water for tea and pours the water into a mug. She flips out whe she realizes the saying on mug has emotional impact. She dumps the hot water and grabs vodka from the freezer. Well, this causes the mug to crack and the vodka to leak out. She walks across the room with the mug in hand and adjusts something behind a computer monitor (I forget what this was, but it made sense). The vodka trickles out of the mug and down into the computer monitor. She continues fooling with whatever next to the monitor for awhile. Well, the vodka gets into the electronics, creates a short circuit, and the monitor explodes. She is cut by the flying glass. Then, the flames from the exploding monitor ignites the vodka trail on the floor leading into the kitchen. Now the stove is on fire. She makes her way into the kitchen to put out the fire and collapses from the blood loss. She looks up and sees a cloth to help stop the flow of blood. What's the cloth on? The knife block. Tug on the cloth. Knife block comes down and thunk! Knife in chest. But wait, she's still alive. Our boy comes to help her. The stove blows up and knocks a dining room chair over to push the knife in. Now she's dead.
While not all of the deaths show that level of creativity, there are many that do, and the final showdown is not to be missed since it doesn't get more unlikely than that, and yet well within the rules of the film.
Definitely a recommended one for its creativity, originality, and even rewatchability.
The Producers -- 2005 -- PG-13
This film is based on the Mel Brooks' Broadway musical which also starred Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick, which was based on the 1968 film of the same name which starred Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder.
Probably the easiest part of any musical is characterizing the main characters, and as with any musical, this is done very well. You get a real sense of who the main characters are as well as the supporting cast through their own character songs and moments.
The film had plenty of funny moments to it, and it even had a solid plot. It follows a down-on-his-luck Broadway producer who figures out through his nerdy accountant that with some creative bookkeeping, a producer can make more money with a flop than with a hit. So begins the roller coaster.
The way it all unfolded was just hilarious and the potential for the awful quality was there right from the get-go. The musical ended up being a romp called "Springtime For Hitler." Note this film is set close enough to the end of World War II to make this topic incredibly sensitive, so the potential for this to be a flop was right there. I found myself laughing at a lot of this and the ensuing madness when (surprise) the musical didn't flop.
There were some problems though. One of them is just in the musical to movie translation (and this may have been present in the original film). The first main scene in the office was incredibly long. After the opening scene where our producer is discussed as having another flop, we go to his office where all the principal characters and plot are introduced. This scene runs for over fifteen minutes -- an eternity for a movie. I felt it needed something to break it up a little.
In addition, I didn't quite understand the consequences of the premise. Apparently, if you bring in more money from investors than you spend on the product...you can get into trouble? Why would you get into trouble? Or my main question: if you are caught, why can't you just give the money back? This point was never explained, and I'm guessing they thought the audience would just get it? I didn't. When the musical did not flop, I didn't understand why they couldn't just say they were cooking the books and realized they did not require the funds they'd originally requested and simply return the investors' money. This was the only unexplained point, and it was big enough in my head to make the last third of the movie questionable.
If you can get past that point and just roll with it, it's a fun film though.
Probably the easiest part of any musical is characterizing the main characters, and as with any musical, this is done very well. You get a real sense of who the main characters are as well as the supporting cast through their own character songs and moments.
The film had plenty of funny moments to it, and it even had a solid plot. It follows a down-on-his-luck Broadway producer who figures out through his nerdy accountant that with some creative bookkeeping, a producer can make more money with a flop than with a hit. So begins the roller coaster.
The way it all unfolded was just hilarious and the potential for the awful quality was there right from the get-go. The musical ended up being a romp called "Springtime For Hitler." Note this film is set close enough to the end of World War II to make this topic incredibly sensitive, so the potential for this to be a flop was right there. I found myself laughing at a lot of this and the ensuing madness when (surprise) the musical didn't flop.
There were some problems though. One of them is just in the musical to movie translation (and this may have been present in the original film). The first main scene in the office was incredibly long. After the opening scene where our producer is discussed as having another flop, we go to his office where all the principal characters and plot are introduced. This scene runs for over fifteen minutes -- an eternity for a movie. I felt it needed something to break it up a little.
In addition, I didn't quite understand the consequences of the premise. Apparently, if you bring in more money from investors than you spend on the product...you can get into trouble? Why would you get into trouble? Or my main question: if you are caught, why can't you just give the money back? This point was never explained, and I'm guessing they thought the audience would just get it? I didn't. When the musical did not flop, I didn't understand why they couldn't just say they were cooking the books and realized they did not require the funds they'd originally requested and simply return the investors' money. This was the only unexplained point, and it was big enough in my head to make the last third of the movie questionable.
If you can get past that point and just roll with it, it's a fun film though.
Aeon Flux -- 2005 -- PG-13
This is a movie version of an MTV animated series involving a group of people in the distant future -- survivors of an ancient plague that has decimated the entire world's population and relegated everyone to a small patch of one country.
I've never seen the MTV series, so I'm approaching this from a cinematic angle, and I found the movie to be quite good and complete. the story was creative and original with no glaring holes. I thought some of the things that happened we a little forced, but not so over the top that it stuck out real bad.
The characters were decently developed and I felt for them to an extent. I did occasionally find them to be a bit over the top in their actions, but it all worked out fairly well. The only complaint I would have involves the main villain (once he is revealed). The megalomaniac thing works sometimes, but I thought it was kind of silly in the context of the film when the full reasoning came to light. He just felt a little too cold hearted. His reasoning didn't quite make sense.
In addition, I felt that the main character was too powerful in many things she did. She survived some pretty outlandish things.
So in the end, it was a good film, but some contrivances from the filmmakers served to decrease its perfection in my mind. These things might work for superhero type films, but I want to deal with real people in extraordinary situations.
I've never seen the MTV series, so I'm approaching this from a cinematic angle, and I found the movie to be quite good and complete. the story was creative and original with no glaring holes. I thought some of the things that happened we a little forced, but not so over the top that it stuck out real bad.
The characters were decently developed and I felt for them to an extent. I did occasionally find them to be a bit over the top in their actions, but it all worked out fairly well. The only complaint I would have involves the main villain (once he is revealed). The megalomaniac thing works sometimes, but I thought it was kind of silly in the context of the film when the full reasoning came to light. He just felt a little too cold hearted. His reasoning didn't quite make sense.
In addition, I felt that the main character was too powerful in many things she did. She survived some pretty outlandish things.
So in the end, it was a good film, but some contrivances from the filmmakers served to decrease its perfection in my mind. These things might work for superhero type films, but I want to deal with real people in extraordinary situations.
House of Wax -- 2005 -- R
Theoretically, this is a remake of he 1953 film with Vincent Price, but the only similarity between this one and that one is the wax covered corpses, and the deformed man with the wax face. Beyond that, this is an original take on the old idea.
The idea behind this film isn't bad. You have an isolated town with a wax museum made entirely of wax. Some argue that the wax building would melt in the sun, but wax takes some extreme temperatures to melt, and I don't see it as a large error. Anyway, the entire town is essentially dead, so these brothers take it over, filling the shops and building with wax dummies to give the entire town the appearance of being a wax museum. Come to find out that these brothers are killing passers-by and covering their bodies with wax. The deaths are okay, the chases are pretty good, and the ending is kind of neat as well.
Characters are about normal for a horror movie in that you get just enough to know who they are, but not develop them to the point that you care. They also do their typical range of idiotic things such as exploring other people's houses and going places that the script tells them to. I rolled my eyes a lot during this film.
When would I have left if I were them? When I'd made camp and a truck drives up and sits there with its lights shining on the campsite. Knowing there was someone in the area who would do this, I would never go to sleep. We'd be out of there. What do they do? Go to sleep only to have a camera stolen and a car sabotaged. Can't say that I'm that surprised.
In the end, for a horror flick, it was okay, but certainly not the best, or even decent, film to come out last year. If they'd spent some time developing the characters and having them make intelligent decisions, that would have improved this film a lot.
The idea behind this film isn't bad. You have an isolated town with a wax museum made entirely of wax. Some argue that the wax building would melt in the sun, but wax takes some extreme temperatures to melt, and I don't see it as a large error. Anyway, the entire town is essentially dead, so these brothers take it over, filling the shops and building with wax dummies to give the entire town the appearance of being a wax museum. Come to find out that these brothers are killing passers-by and covering their bodies with wax. The deaths are okay, the chases are pretty good, and the ending is kind of neat as well.
Characters are about normal for a horror movie in that you get just enough to know who they are, but not develop them to the point that you care. They also do their typical range of idiotic things such as exploring other people's houses and going places that the script tells them to. I rolled my eyes a lot during this film.
When would I have left if I were them? When I'd made camp and a truck drives up and sits there with its lights shining on the campsite. Knowing there was someone in the area who would do this, I would never go to sleep. We'd be out of there. What do they do? Go to sleep only to have a camera stolen and a car sabotaged. Can't say that I'm that surprised.
In the end, for a horror flick, it was okay, but certainly not the best, or even decent, film to come out last year. If they'd spent some time developing the characters and having them make intelligent decisions, that would have improved this film a lot.
The Island -- 2005 -- PG-13
From the moment I saw the first trailer, I knew this was a remake of a film I saw on TV a long time ago called Parts: The Clonus Horror, and the film followed that plot line perfectly. However, this being a modern movie, it really improved upon some of the cheese that permeated that old plot and made for a better and more satisfying film overall.
We begin in an environment that reminds me of a cross between 1984 and THX-1138 where people are in a mostly sterile environment wearing nothing but white jumpsuits. They all long to go to a place called "The Island" which they believe is the only place to have survived a catastrophic contamination that destroyed much of the earth and forced them into the world they now live in.
While I had an idea of where this was going based on this earlier film, this movie was still satisfying and had its own surprises going along making it not a total waste of over two hours. Some of the chase sequences ran on too long, but they had some great effects here and there.
So in the end, a lot of it is very familiar, but it is tied together in such a way to make it worth watching.
We begin in an environment that reminds me of a cross between 1984 and THX-1138 where people are in a mostly sterile environment wearing nothing but white jumpsuits. They all long to go to a place called "The Island" which they believe is the only place to have survived a catastrophic contamination that destroyed much of the earth and forced them into the world they now live in.
While I had an idea of where this was going based on this earlier film, this movie was still satisfying and had its own surprises going along making it not a total waste of over two hours. Some of the chase sequences ran on too long, but they had some great effects here and there.
So in the end, a lot of it is very familiar, but it is tied together in such a way to make it worth watching.
Saw II -- 2005 -- R
The sequel to the thriller Saw has two basic storylines in its structure. One of them is very good with some awesome twists very much carrying on the tradition of the first film. The second storyline is nothing more than a basic slasher complete with a host of characters who will inevitably be killed in a variety of different fashions before really getting to know them making their deaths, while gruesome, mean nothing emotionally.
The primary storyline involves the pathos-injected serial killer, Jigsaw (or John, as he prefers to be called), building an intricate and complex game around and between a cop and his son, who are, of course, estranged due to a parental divorce. This is the primary plot device which propels the film forward in both elements and gives us some buy-in to the story. john makes his simple request and assures the cop that if he complies, he will see his son. Since he is also told everyone in the house where his son is will die within the same time frame of a deadly nerve agent, this creates an understandable amount of agitation for the cop. This conflict is played out in pretty much one location while they can watch the eight people in the house on a series of monitors. This plot climaxes beautifully, has no less than three excellent twists within that climax and really makes the film worth watching.
The second plot of the eight strangers in a house is ok, and serves the primary purpose to give the main plot something to argue over. However, these eight strangers are idiots. They don't listen. They don't cooperate. They are told some specific things, and don't seem to even care. They are told about an antidote in the room they start in, but they don't even try for it since that would involve conversation and character building. Instead, they set themselves to wander aimlessly through this house, insisting (no matter what stands in their way) that they will find a way out. They get themselves into the traps Jigsaw has made, and more often than not, die trying to decipher them...not that the deciphering is that difficult. For the first trap, they somehow know that the antidote is in syringes, but they have yet to see what the antidote looks like yet. How do they know it's not injestible? They woudln't. On another occasion, they actually get an antidote, but no one uses it. Why not? If fact, no one even mentions it even though the syringe clearly had something in it. Deleted scene? Overall, this part of the film just stinks because it is so plain in comparison to the main plot. It takes away from the enjoyment of the main plot due primarily to the amount of eye-rolling that goes on for me.
So the verdict is that this is a good and watchable film as long as you don't expect too much from our house guests, who act very much like they belong on Big Brother complete with their infantile antics. Go for the main plot. It is intelligent and clever and the twists are (as with the first film) definitely worth the wait
The primary storyline involves the pathos-injected serial killer, Jigsaw (or John, as he prefers to be called), building an intricate and complex game around and between a cop and his son, who are, of course, estranged due to a parental divorce. This is the primary plot device which propels the film forward in both elements and gives us some buy-in to the story. john makes his simple request and assures the cop that if he complies, he will see his son. Since he is also told everyone in the house where his son is will die within the same time frame of a deadly nerve agent, this creates an understandable amount of agitation for the cop. This conflict is played out in pretty much one location while they can watch the eight people in the house on a series of monitors. This plot climaxes beautifully, has no less than three excellent twists within that climax and really makes the film worth watching.
The second plot of the eight strangers in a house is ok, and serves the primary purpose to give the main plot something to argue over. However, these eight strangers are idiots. They don't listen. They don't cooperate. They are told some specific things, and don't seem to even care. They are told about an antidote in the room they start in, but they don't even try for it since that would involve conversation and character building. Instead, they set themselves to wander aimlessly through this house, insisting (no matter what stands in their way) that they will find a way out. They get themselves into the traps Jigsaw has made, and more often than not, die trying to decipher them...not that the deciphering is that difficult. For the first trap, they somehow know that the antidote is in syringes, but they have yet to see what the antidote looks like yet. How do they know it's not injestible? They woudln't. On another occasion, they actually get an antidote, but no one uses it. Why not? If fact, no one even mentions it even though the syringe clearly had something in it. Deleted scene? Overall, this part of the film just stinks because it is so plain in comparison to the main plot. It takes away from the enjoyment of the main plot due primarily to the amount of eye-rolling that goes on for me.
So the verdict is that this is a good and watchable film as long as you don't expect too much from our house guests, who act very much like they belong on Big Brother complete with their infantile antics. Go for the main plot. It is intelligent and clever and the twists are (as with the first film) definitely worth the wait
Skeleton Key -- 2005 -- PG-13
Dissenters aside, I thought this movie worked pretty well for what it was. Most of it occurred in one house with some pretty decent character development, though the main character could have been rounded out a little better. We got a feel for her outlook, but not much of her past life or future desires.
I thought the basic plot was pretty good and the twists were well thought out and tied together, along with a very sinister revelation near the end. That really helped this film a lot, but it still suffered from underdeveloped characters. While I will grant that there was a reason they appeared the way they were, it still would have helped if there was more substance to them.
Some of the sequences did not make a lot of sense. Why continue to go up to the attic just to explore the forbidden room? Especially after what it was doing earlier? Why defy the homeowners so much? Why, when threatened as she was, with the knowledge she had, did she stand directly in the path of danger? Why not run to her room where she had already protected herself? She seemed to willingly welcome the fate she ended with. In quite a few instances, the plot moved the characters instead of the other way around as it should be. This movie also has the distinction of being the only film I know of where a vehicle is unable to break through a lock on a fence. Kinda weird.
Everything else was well-explained, clever for the most part, and tied up neatly complete with a bizarre question mark of an ending for a minor character. So overall, not bad, it just lacked in a lot of other areas. I think a little more thought into the screenplay would have helped a lot.
I thought the basic plot was pretty good and the twists were well thought out and tied together, along with a very sinister revelation near the end. That really helped this film a lot, but it still suffered from underdeveloped characters. While I will grant that there was a reason they appeared the way they were, it still would have helped if there was more substance to them.
Some of the sequences did not make a lot of sense. Why continue to go up to the attic just to explore the forbidden room? Especially after what it was doing earlier? Why defy the homeowners so much? Why, when threatened as she was, with the knowledge she had, did she stand directly in the path of danger? Why not run to her room where she had already protected herself? She seemed to willingly welcome the fate she ended with. In quite a few instances, the plot moved the characters instead of the other way around as it should be. This movie also has the distinction of being the only film I know of where a vehicle is unable to break through a lock on a fence. Kinda weird.
Everything else was well-explained, clever for the most part, and tied up neatly complete with a bizarre question mark of an ending for a minor character. So overall, not bad, it just lacked in a lot of other areas. I think a little more thought into the screenplay would have helped a lot.
Red Eye -- 2005 -- PG-13
This was a film that had a really good beginning, and moved perfectly right into the big shocker on the airplane. The tension was really well done...for awhile.
After some time, it became kind of annoying that everything this woman did to escape was discovered every time, and in the most convenient ways possible. The guy was omniscent or something.
The entry into the third act was clever, but matters of convenience got in the way again as this guy managed to keep going somehow. It seemed a bit hard to believe in some ways, but I guess it worked. The subplot of the girl in the hotel was okay, and helped in a way to distract from the main plot, but not enough, so it was very easy to get bored with the single thing going on.
I will have to say that the final scene during the denouement of the whole film was simply golden. I laughed out loud.
After some time, it became kind of annoying that everything this woman did to escape was discovered every time, and in the most convenient ways possible. The guy was omniscent or something.
The entry into the third act was clever, but matters of convenience got in the way again as this guy managed to keep going somehow. It seemed a bit hard to believe in some ways, but I guess it worked. The subplot of the girl in the hotel was okay, and helped in a way to distract from the main plot, but not enough, so it was very easy to get bored with the single thing going on.
I will have to say that the final scene during the denouement of the whole film was simply golden. I laughed out loud.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - 2005 - PG-13
The fourth film adapting the Harry Potter series continues the tradition laid down in the third of allowing Stephen Kloves to adapt the book properly instead of trying to film the book as the first two films did. The result is a film that, like the books, is darker and scarier than the one before it. While it was diappointing that John Williams did not compose the music to this one, it is still a great film and a great addition to the HP series.
This film moves fast. Kloves followed the standard of adaptation very well by retaining the essential plot points of the book while writing a screenplay around them. We thankfully do not include the Dursleys here allowing us to pick up right in the wizarding world with the Quidditch World Cup and all the things that went with it. From there, we jet right over to Hogwart's and get into the point of the movie: the Tri-Wizard Tournament, that underage Harry, of course, has to participate in.
It's been awhile since I read the book, but I remembered much of it as I watched the film meaning it followed the story pretty closely. I'm sure there were some things missed, but given the length of the book, that comes as no surprise. The essence of the story was captured, and we got ourselves a dark, fast film with some solid character moments for the lead trio and those around them.
A moment I am grateful was touched on is the budding love-hate between Hermione and Ron that is back and forth in the books. They were given a solid scene to play out the emotions and they did it very well. Be very cool to see how they continue to blossom this one.
So, overall, if you've liked the movies so far, this one will not disappoint.
This film moves fast. Kloves followed the standard of adaptation very well by retaining the essential plot points of the book while writing a screenplay around them. We thankfully do not include the Dursleys here allowing us to pick up right in the wizarding world with the Quidditch World Cup and all the things that went with it. From there, we jet right over to Hogwart's and get into the point of the movie: the Tri-Wizard Tournament, that underage Harry, of course, has to participate in.
It's been awhile since I read the book, but I remembered much of it as I watched the film meaning it followed the story pretty closely. I'm sure there were some things missed, but given the length of the book, that comes as no surprise. The essence of the story was captured, and we got ourselves a dark, fast film with some solid character moments for the lead trio and those around them.
A moment I am grateful was touched on is the budding love-hate between Hermione and Ron that is back and forth in the books. They were given a solid scene to play out the emotions and they did it very well. Be very cool to see how they continue to blossom this one.
So, overall, if you've liked the movies so far, this one will not disappoint.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
