This film was billed as a Psychological Thriller and was even in Entertainment Weekly's list of the top 25 scariest movies of all time which is what led me to watch it. The problem: this is not a psychological thriller. A thriller requires a threat of some sort to be omnipresent, but this movie has none. No threat to anyone at any time during the movie. (Well, there is sort of one near the beginning, but it comes to nothing.)
This is a psychological drama trying to masquerade as a psychological thriller. Here's where the problem with this comes in. The premise of the film revolves around these interdependent identical twins (Elliot and Beverly -- and yes, that this is a woman's name is a sore point for Beverly) who share an apartment, their gynecological practice, and even women. One is a suave ladies man who generally picks up the women and then lets his introverted, book worm brother have a turn as him. The movie is without a doubt creepy in an "ew" kind of way, but that's about it.
The drama comes in when Beverly falls in love with a woman that he and Elliot had been sharing and now he wants her for himself. Beverly descends into drug use with her and since he is a doctor, he is able to procure pharmaceuticals for himself. She finds out about their "sharing" and is obviously disgusted by it, since she picks up early on that Beverly seems a little "schizophrenic." She is an actress who has to leave town for awhile, and Beverly has difficulty with the separation eventually returning to his brother to cling. Elliot decide he has lost touch with his brother and they need to re-synchronize so Elliot gets on the prescription drugs too, so they're at the same level. As these things tend to go, they both lose everything in the process. We won't even go into the "gynelogical surgical instruments for operating on mutant women." What the heck was that all about?
The problem comes in when everyone besides Elliot and Beverly are poored developed characters. We know the twins very well, but everyone else is out of the loop. Even the girlfriend actress doesn't get much development. While this is typical of a psychological thriller, a drama requires relationships to keep it interesting and moving, and the only relationship developed is that of the twins. Time is given to Beverly and the girl, but only between them. She, as a character, rarely gets much time.
The climax & ending makes very little sense. I think I have an idea, but trying to go past a simple reason to why the why is is convoluted in my own head to say the least. When the end credits started rolling, I was actually hoping for a final scene to explain what the heck just happened, but nothing. I watched the special features on the DVD, but nothing. I don't really have any clue why the climax went the way it did, or why the ending was the way it was.
The film was decent, but a lot of stuff happened that didn't make a lot of sense, and the ending just lost me giving me a poor last impression.
Movie Trailers and such
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Dead Ringers -- 1988 -- R
Friday, January 16, 2009
Willow -- 1988 -- PG
It's a fun little quest movie that is better if you just let it flow and don't put too much thought into it.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
A Fish Called Wanda -- 1988 -- R
Oh my goodness, now this was a funny movie. The credits blame John Cleese for the writing of this screenplay, and it all worked perfectly.
Basically, we have four people who work together to heist a bunch of diamonds. Neither of them trust any of the others, but they needed each other to pull it off. Everyone has essentially lied to everyone else about practically everything, so the whole film revolves around untying all the ends and figuring out who's who and what's what.
I never guessed how this was going to end up, and it's just perfect. I thoroughly enjoyed this one and definitely recommend it.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood -- 1988 -- R
Gotta hand it to them on this one: at least they tried to make it a little different from the previous ones. The plot here involves a girl with telekinetic abilities who is brought back to the lake house where she inadvertently killed her father. Her therapist believes this move will be very therapeutic in her recovery, but it seems her therapist has plans of his own.
That is actually the main plot of the film. Jason's involvment is what throws a monekywrench into the whole scheme. Unfortunately, the main plot is kept only mildly interesting as the focus is placed on Jason wandering around killing people. The two plots intersect briefly as Tina, the telekintetic, runs out of a session frustrated with what the doctor is doing and stands on the dock wishing her father could come back to her. Since her episodes of telekinesis are triggered by high emotional states, this desire serves to break Jason loose from his chains at the bottom of Crystal Lake (curiously renamed back to its original name from its brief moniker as Forest Green in 6).
Tina's plot continues on as she decides to party next door with kids who are conveniently waiting there for a surprise birthday party for one of their friends who hasn't arrived yet. No spoiler here; he never gets there...any guesses as to why? They just don't make cars like they used to. Anyway, as Tina parties, she gets a vision and even sees a piece of this vision stuck into the side of her house when she runs home. Conveniently this is gone moments later when everyone checks it out, and while this is later explained, there are a whole lot of holes in this doctor-patient plot that I never fully got.
There are a lot of holes in the doctor's character that make his actions a little weird and nonsensical. We get a lot of info about him kindof second hand, so we get an idea of what he is up to, but he never admits to it, nor is it sufficiently explained before he becomes a victim. He knows a lot about the region and what happened (everyone seems to have this stash of old newspaper clipping laying around somewhere, don't they?), but how the heck does that play into his character?
Jason's plot of the hack 'n' slash is pretty standard, and we've seen all the conventions and weaknesses in this line before. Nothing new or even interesting here. Characters pop up out of no where to be killed. Teenagers wander off and split up to be killed. They go into dark areas calling out random names to be killed. Jason acquires a random power tool to kill off one person. Where'd he get it? Why's he carrying it? I don't think anyone really cares. People run for a while, and then stop whle being chased to look behind them and then back up while watching their killer approach. Seriously, people, who does this? Who would? If I were running from someone, I'd be hightailing it as fast as I can. Screw looking back to see how close he is. I'd be long gone.
Anyway, they get some credit for attempting to make the plot a little deeper than it normally runs, but the deeper plot gets no focus once the bodies start dropping. As in most of the recent installments, the actual deaths (i.e. the reason this film was even made) are cut tremendously leaving only an implication that something happened. This was apparently requierd so that the film woudl not be rated X. I've read multiple things online where fans are screaming for unrated versions of these films so the full make up work of the death scenes can be enjoyed, but Paramount (or New Line, who I believe owns the F13 series now) refuses to deliver.
So it works as yet another installment. It's got some variations on the old themes, and even a little new something to enjoy as Tina is allowed to go head to head against Jason at the end. That was actually the best part of the film right there. I did actually jump once, so big points for that. So if you check the first and third acts only and skip all the teen death crap in the middle, it's pretty nice to watch.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
The Great Outdoors -- 1988 -- PG
Ok, got me a goofy summer vacation movie with John Candy and Dan Ackroyd. Like any good comedy, sometimes the jokes worked, and sometimes they didn't, but you could tell they made a good effort. On the whole, though, it wasn't a bad film, just a fun little flick to kick back and relax to.
So dad wants to take his wife and kids out to the lake...to the very same house where his dad took him and where he and the wife honeymooned as well. The house isn't what it used to be, and its upkeep is more than questionable, but it is livable for the duration of their vacation...or it would have been had the in-laws not shown up and busted in on their vacation. Now it's all about making the vacation work on a smile-and-nod basis between the brothers-in-law.
The film is more about the chemistry between the guys and the antics that ensue than about any kind of plot which remains loosely based around the vacation. John and Dan play off each other admirably in most scenes, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a fair amount of improv between them. It is this that makes the film fun to watch.
We did have our fair share of painful moments though...you know, those things tht could have been better lived without? The most painfully obvious was the subplot between the teen lovers. Boy meets girl in town and they have a short-lived fling. This fling did not tie into the vacation plot at all with the rest of the family, and in a lot of places, the scenes felt like they were written in after the filming was complete just to give the boy something to do. They maintain continuity with these scenes by the skin of their teeth, and in the final tearful "I'm going home" moment, the continuity is practically blown since it was stuck between the boy taking his bag to the car and everyone leaving. Every one of these scenes could be excised and the movie would lose nothing and even be a bit better.
The climax of the main plot was completely silly, but appropriate. You get your fair share of groans and laughs and leave ultimately satisfied with the way it all ends up. It's not a piece of contemplative art, but it's a lot fo fun to watch, and as long as you acknowledge it for that, it'll be enjoyable.