So it has been ages since I wrote a review of a movie, but after watching the 8th installment to the Saw franchise, I was compelled. Why? Because it was so close to being something good. So very close. If you're a fan, go ahead and give it a watch. It's not for the newb. Spoilers ahead cause I'm giving it all away.
This movie occurs ten years after John Kramer's (aka Jigsaw) death. It appears to follow a copycat killer who is dispatching victims in the same somewhat creative ways that jigsaw did years before, and they're trying to track him down. The central storyline is pretty standard in that the selectees of the game mostly yell at each other and ignore the very plain instructions despite the fact that they are shown to keep them alive. As a result, people generally die unnecessarily, but that's how these things go.
Where it goes into frustration-land is the ending. The ending of any story is the frame on which you hang all your hopes, and this was so freaking close to working. So close I could taste it. Dang, I'm mad about this one. The twist was perfect. It worked really, really well. I smiled.
This is your last chance. I'm about to spoil it all.
Consider yourself warned.
The twist was that the guy running the game in the present was one of the victims in the game we're actually watching throughout the film. You see, the core game we're watching was one of Jigsaw's first years ago, and those victims are long gone and deceased. The victims in the present are from a copycat of that original, although the guy in charge says that he only used three victims instead of five, and somehow they ended up in the same way. Don't think too hard about that cause it doesn't actually make sense unless he just outright killed them.
But then we get to the ending. The setup is magnificent. The guy running the show successfully framed the detective in charge, and he went to painstaking methods to do it. There is no way the guy is getting off. I mean, the detective is not a nice guy. We got a confession at the end. He deserves a comeuppance. Then, the movie ruins it.
Being framed for a bunch of murders would be a horrible way to go for a lawman, but instead of letting that punishment stand, the killer monologues him and us to death and then kills the detective anyway. Was it creative? Sure. Did the special effects team really want that in there? Clearly. Did it work? No. It completely ruined the entire framing plan. Why go to all that work and then not let it play out? Now instead of a framing, the detective is yet another victim and will die a martyr. Nothing bad will happen to him for his sins. He just dies which in this world is basically getting away with it.
All they had to do was let him live and wonder who was really behind it all. The movie could have told us who did it for the sake of the big reveal and twist, but left the character in the dark. If they had done that, the movie would have been elevated to diabolical.
What these writers need to understand is that torturing someone only works as long as they're alive. Once someone is dead, they're free. It would have been a great ending, but they screwed it up for the sake of a cool effect. Good job. Gruesome effects work, guys. Too bad the movie is now so mediocre that no one will care.
Showing posts with label Crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Crime. Show all posts
Monday, June 10, 2019
Sunday, February 1, 2009
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.
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
Thursday, January 29, 2009
The Interpreter -- 2005 -- PG-13
A political thriller following a woman who works for the UN as an interpreter who overhears a plot to assassinate a controversial head of state. The Feds try to protect her, but she shields from them her complex past making their job only that much more difficult.
This is a film with multiple layers and pretty solid characters. The plot centers itself more around this woman as uncovering her past than it does who is following her, and this is pretty much on purpose. The questions linger throughout: did she hear something or not? Is she in on it or not? And the beauty of it all is that we really don't know until it's all over.
I found this to be a well-constructed plot that finally ties itself up fairly well by the final frame, though the denouement is a little shaky. Fortunately, for a political thriller, it doesn't bog us down in the politics. In fact, the movie centers around a fictional country, which while some complain that this is a poor device, works a little better than placing a real one in there since it allows for a statement to be made without centering anyone out.
Overall, good flick.
This is a film with multiple layers and pretty solid characters. The plot centers itself more around this woman as uncovering her past than it does who is following her, and this is pretty much on purpose. The questions linger throughout: did she hear something or not? Is she in on it or not? And the beauty of it all is that we really don't know until it's all over.
I found this to be a well-constructed plot that finally ties itself up fairly well by the final frame, though the denouement is a little shaky. Fortunately, for a political thriller, it doesn't bog us down in the politics. In fact, the movie centers around a fictional country, which while some complain that this is a poor device, works a little better than placing a real one in there since it allows for a statement to be made without centering anyone out.
Overall, good flick.
The French Connection -- 1971 -- R
1971 must have been a slow year for movies. If ever you wanted to know just how boring a detective's job can be, this film exemplifies it. It's 104 minutes I'll never get back. The characters experienced no growth during the course of this film, and the story never took off to any degree that I noticed. The only note-worthy scene was an interesting chase of a car following a city train. The car was under the tracks swerving and speeding. However, the setup for the chase was poorly executed and since I had no emotional investment in the picture by this time, it came off as really anti-climactic.
How this film managed to win 5 Oscars including best picture, best director, and best screenplay is a mystery I'll never know the answer to. For best picture, it beat out Fiddler on the Roof and A Clockwork Orange, both of which are vastly superior to this film.
How this film managed to win 5 Oscars including best picture, best director, and best screenplay is a mystery I'll never know the answer to. For best picture, it beat out Fiddler on the Roof and A Clockwork Orange, both of which are vastly superior to this film.
But hey, not all films are for all people. I didn't like it, but maybe I missed something.
Chinatown -- 1974 -- R
Jack Nicholson leads the cast of this 1974 kickback to the noir films of the past. A private dick, Gittes, is assigned by a Mrs. Mulray to track her husband because she suspects him of an affair. As soon as Gittes turns the pictures over to Mrs. Mulray, they end up in the daily paper. That's when the REAL Mrs. Mulray shows up threatening to sue Gittes for taking the incriminating pics of her husband. Gittes sets out to discover who this fake Mrs. Mulray was and why she would want to destroy Mr. Mulray, and then Mr. Mulray ends up dead and the girlfriend disappears.
This movie gives away nothing as it curves through its clever storyline. The characters were believable and well written (you can tell that when you comment while viewing what a character will do because that's how he is). It's rare to find a film that takes you on an unpredictable ride as it unfolds instead of one where you know how it ends before it begins. Definitely a recommended watching.
Now, if only it had a better ending...
This movie gives away nothing as it curves through its clever storyline. The characters were believable and well written (you can tell that when you comment while viewing what a character will do because that's how he is). It's rare to find a film that takes you on an unpredictable ride as it unfolds instead of one where you know how it ends before it begins. Definitely a recommended watching.
Now, if only it had a better ending...
Blood Simple -- 1984 -- R
This debut for the Coen brothers who write and direct is an awesome thriller that takes four characters and keeps them guessing. They reveal to the audience everything that happens to each of them, and that superiority over the characters only heightens the drama watching the characters guess as to the intentions of the others.
Basically, a husband is upset about his wife having an affar and leaving him, so he hires a private investigator to take care of the situation. Well, the investogatr double-crosses him, and the roller coaster starts from there as everything just goes horribly, horribly wrong.
After watching it, I learned why it was such a classic. Definitely worth a viewing if you haven't yet seen it. The "R" rating is more for situational content than anything else. Minimal profanity, blood, or nudity, which is often the reason for the rating in a film like this.
Basically, a husband is upset about his wife having an affar and leaving him, so he hires a private investigator to take care of the situation. Well, the investogatr double-crosses him, and the roller coaster starts from there as everything just goes horribly, horribly wrong.
After watching it, I learned why it was such a classic. Definitely worth a viewing if you haven't yet seen it. The "R" rating is more for situational content than anything else. Minimal profanity, blood, or nudity, which is often the reason for the rating in a film like this.
The Crow -- 1994 -- R
This film was based on the underground comic book of the same name and was very gritty and dark. It followed a guy who was brutally murdered with his girlfriend, and then comes back a year later to avenge his own death under the watchful eye of a crow. Overall, the film was very good with lots of action, feeling, and plot. I really feel the weakest point was the beginning.
It opened with the death of our main character. If the filmmakers had tried to flesh out the guy and his girlfriend just a little bit before they were murdered (get some of those hopes and dreams stuff going), then their deaths would have had more impact. We would be expecting a movie about them, and then wonder what just happened when they get killed.
Doing this would have spoiled nothing since the guy learns most of it during the first 10-15 minutes of the film anyway. I think knowing the relationship between himself and the girl would have helped this movie tremendously. As it is, it's good, but it could have been better.
It opened with the death of our main character. If the filmmakers had tried to flesh out the guy and his girlfriend just a little bit before they were murdered (get some of those hopes and dreams stuff going), then their deaths would have had more impact. We would be expecting a movie about them, and then wonder what just happened when they get killed.
Doing this would have spoiled nothing since the guy learns most of it during the first 10-15 minutes of the film anyway. I think knowing the relationship between himself and the girl would have helped this movie tremendously. As it is, it's good, but it could have been better.
Cape Fear -- 1962 -- NR
This is the original version with Gregory Peck. I also read this movie got 161 cuts from the British censors, and they still wanted an X rating for it due to themes of sadism and child endangerment. Interesting.
This film was very, very good. It started out with a curiosity of this guy looking for someone else who is a lawyer. It escalates into stalking and then worse. The suspense is tight right from the get go. Things just keep getting worse as our hero tries to protect his family, but with every turn, the villain has the upper hand. Even in the final masterplan, things go horribly wrong.
If you like suspense flicks, this one definitely has it where it counts. We really care about the man and his family, and have some concern for what the bad guy is going to do. Recommended.
This film was very, very good. It started out with a curiosity of this guy looking for someone else who is a lawyer. It escalates into stalking and then worse. The suspense is tight right from the get go. Things just keep getting worse as our hero tries to protect his family, but with every turn, the villain has the upper hand. Even in the final masterplan, things go horribly wrong.
If you like suspense flicks, this one definitely has it where it counts. We really care about the man and his family, and have some concern for what the bad guy is going to do. Recommended.
Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery - 1997 - PG-13
Having watched all of the James Bond films since the last time I saw this first installment of the Austin Powers Trilogy, I found it funnier than ever before. It follows Superspy Austin Powers (a clear James Bond knockoff) as he is crygenically frozen in case Dr. Evil (a clear Ernst Blofeld knockoff) returns to wreak havoc on the world. Not only are several Bond locales and lines and situations spoofed in this films, but several spy film standards are commented upon and torn apart (such as placing the victim in an easily escapable situation using an overly elaborate scheme to destroy them while all the while, a modern character insists he just get a gun and shoot them, but he is told tht's not the way it is done).
I thoroughly enjoyed this film, and having a thorough understanding of the Bond saga made it all the more funnier.
I caught references to Dr. No, Goldfinger, Thunderball (lots), You Only Live Twice, and Diamonds Are Forever. There are likely more. This is a really great send-up on the Bond films. But as a stand alone films, if you've never seen and spy flick, it still works just as well, has a solid plot, well-rounded characters, and a solid and satifying resolution.
I thoroughly enjoyed this film, and having a thorough understanding of the Bond saga made it all the more funnier.
I caught references to Dr. No, Goldfinger, Thunderball (lots), You Only Live Twice, and Diamonds Are Forever. There are likely more. This is a really great send-up on the Bond films. But as a stand alone films, if you've never seen and spy flick, it still works just as well, has a solid plot, well-rounded characters, and a solid and satifying resolution.
The Cell -- 2000 -- R
I loved the premise of this film. A psychiatrist uses a mchine to enter the mind of someone else to dig through and get some info they need. The images and such of being in someone's mind were a real trip and fun to endure in some ways (and scenes), but really disturbing in others. Unfortunately, this premise is completely wasted in this film.
The premise is that they enter the mind of a serial killer to try and discover the whereabouts of his final victim. Awesome. The Agent who finally entered the guy's mind (not the psychiatrist) saw a symbol that was on a table at the guy's house, and made the connection using standard detective work, meaning if we were watching CSI, they would figure it out without the help of this machine. Sure it gave the psychiatrist someone to save and to prove her point about something earlier in the film, but when something can be skipped and reach the same solution, it really spoils the plot.
Moving on, the killer's character was very well rounded, but the main pair of the cop and the psychiatrist were very thin. There were some references made that I thought would come out later, but they were never returned to, and another reference later just came out of thin air. Everyone else was completely forgettable.
So, good special effects and a clever premise in a blissfully wasted package of a plot.
The premise is that they enter the mind of a serial killer to try and discover the whereabouts of his final victim. Awesome. The Agent who finally entered the guy's mind (not the psychiatrist) saw a symbol that was on a table at the guy's house, and made the connection using standard detective work, meaning if we were watching CSI, they would figure it out without the help of this machine. Sure it gave the psychiatrist someone to save and to prove her point about something earlier in the film, but when something can be skipped and reach the same solution, it really spoils the plot.
Moving on, the killer's character was very well rounded, but the main pair of the cop and the psychiatrist were very thin. There were some references made that I thought would come out later, but they were never returned to, and another reference later just came out of thin air. Everyone else was completely forgettable.
So, good special effects and a clever premise in a blissfully wasted package of a plot.
The Green Mile -- 1999 -- R
This bizarre tale from the mind of Stephen King was based on his serial novellas, The Green Mile. The title came from a death row prison block with a green floor. Death row is generally called "The Mile," but with their green floor, it became "The Green Mile."
This movie is almost 100% character. There are some shocking moments made more poignant by knowing these characters and their relationships with each other. Since this is death row, we see men sent to the electric chair and how that entire process is carried out. We also get a conflict between a guard and a prisoner. A very shocking (d'oh! pun!) death comes at 90 minutes through the 3 hour flick, and the chords of it strike much, much deeper due to the character development leading up to it. If this had been done after 15 minutes, it would not have meant anything and not have been memorable at all.
On a first watching and taking in everything throughout the film, I found it to be very good. A great exercise is suspense, plot, and development from one end to the other. It also had a solid twist and amusing consequences for one of the nastier characters.
The ending was inevitable and heartbreaking. Through the time we spent getting to know everyone, and then what they had to endure at the end made this movie a very solid viewing and one to stick in the mind if you have the three hours to commit to it.
And as an added bonus, it even has Sesame Street's "Mr. Noodle's brother, Mr. Noodle" as Mr. Delacroix...not that the kids are watching...he doesn't come to a good end.
This movie is almost 100% character. There are some shocking moments made more poignant by knowing these characters and their relationships with each other. Since this is death row, we see men sent to the electric chair and how that entire process is carried out. We also get a conflict between a guard and a prisoner. A very shocking (d'oh! pun!) death comes at 90 minutes through the 3 hour flick, and the chords of it strike much, much deeper due to the character development leading up to it. If this had been done after 15 minutes, it would not have meant anything and not have been memorable at all.
On a first watching and taking in everything throughout the film, I found it to be very good. A great exercise is suspense, plot, and development from one end to the other. It also had a solid twist and amusing consequences for one of the nastier characters.
The ending was inevitable and heartbreaking. Through the time we spent getting to know everyone, and then what they had to endure at the end made this movie a very solid viewing and one to stick in the mind if you have the three hours to commit to it.
And as an added bonus, it even has Sesame Street's "Mr. Noodle's brother, Mr. Noodle" as Mr. Delacroix...not that the kids are watching...he doesn't come to a good end.
Layer Cake -- 2004 -- R
The primary reason I got this movie was to see Daniel Craig (the next James Bond) play in a film that might fit the Bond chops. Well, this film didn't exactly.
This was more of a wannabe thriller than an action movie, and it was all about cheering for the drug dealers. The literary source material was clear in the writing since there were a wealth of characters, and they were all really well fleshed out. Parts of it ran a little confusing at times, and who Dragon is was never fully explained, though I believe I caught the implication.
But when there are so many characters, some get less screentime than others, which simply feels odd at times. There was a love interest, but she barely got 5 minutes. There was a plot to rescue some runaway, that was only just touched on a few times before we went back to the main plot. I don't think the resolution to that plot was ever given.
While the story's resolution was very clever and appropriate to the feel of the story, thinking back over the whole thing just leaves a lot of question marks. Not really so much that there are plot holes, just weird curiosities left open by the sheer wealth of characters and activity that went on. The movie needed to be longer to get it all in. I actually read the first draft of the screenplay was 408 pages...yeah, not that long, but they could have shot for the two hour mark, at least.
Overall, it was a decent flick with lots of plot and characters, but really too big for its britches, they used the "f" word about 20 times per scene (got annoying), and I disliked the ending to boot.
This was more of a wannabe thriller than an action movie, and it was all about cheering for the drug dealers. The literary source material was clear in the writing since there were a wealth of characters, and they were all really well fleshed out. Parts of it ran a little confusing at times, and who Dragon is was never fully explained, though I believe I caught the implication.
But when there are so many characters, some get less screentime than others, which simply feels odd at times. There was a love interest, but she barely got 5 minutes. There was a plot to rescue some runaway, that was only just touched on a few times before we went back to the main plot. I don't think the resolution to that plot was ever given.
While the story's resolution was very clever and appropriate to the feel of the story, thinking back over the whole thing just leaves a lot of question marks. Not really so much that there are plot holes, just weird curiosities left open by the sheer wealth of characters and activity that went on. The movie needed to be longer to get it all in. I actually read the first draft of the screenplay was 408 pages...yeah, not that long, but they could have shot for the two hour mark, at least.
Overall, it was a decent flick with lots of plot and characters, but really too big for its britches, they used the "f" word about 20 times per scene (got annoying), and I disliked the ending to boot.
House of Wax -- 1953 -- NR
The plot of a wax museum curator using corpses as wax models is a plot going way back and is doubtless the result of the lifelike appearance of wax dummies.
This version of the tale from 1953 with Vincent Price in the lead role is a good take on this tale. When his partner decides to burn the museum down in order to take advantage of the insurance money, the owner, who has an unnatural attachment to his work, takes on apprentices to do his work for him. At the same time, there are a series of murders and the corpse disappears, baffling the police.
Only one person has seen this murderer and that is Sue Allen, but the cops don't believe her description of the assailant as he is badly burned. One might believe this to be the museum owner, but low and behold, when we see him, his face is not only normal, but he is in a wheelchair, and can't walk.
It tells a great tale in the style of a thriller approaching early slasher. The characters are decent and the only complaint I have in this one is the heroine getting herself into danger by going placs we know full well she shouldn't, though in this case, there is at least some measure of reasonable motivation.
Overall, the film works well as an old style horror tale with that macabre twist that is done so well in older films when they couldn't get much in the way of gore past the censors.
This version of the tale from 1953 with Vincent Price in the lead role is a good take on this tale. When his partner decides to burn the museum down in order to take advantage of the insurance money, the owner, who has an unnatural attachment to his work, takes on apprentices to do his work for him. At the same time, there are a series of murders and the corpse disappears, baffling the police.
Only one person has seen this murderer and that is Sue Allen, but the cops don't believe her description of the assailant as he is badly burned. One might believe this to be the museum owner, but low and behold, when we see him, his face is not only normal, but he is in a wheelchair, and can't walk.
It tells a great tale in the style of a thriller approaching early slasher. The characters are decent and the only complaint I have in this one is the heroine getting herself into danger by going placs we know full well she shouldn't, though in this case, there is at least some measure of reasonable motivation.
Overall, the film works well as an old style horror tale with that macabre twist that is done so well in older films when they couldn't get much in the way of gore past the censors.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The Exorcism of Emily Rose -- 2005 -- PG-13
This was a strange and occasionally unsettling film. It's always unsettling when the antagonist is something you can't see, identify with, or even control in any way. Much like the people oing up agains death in the Final Destination series, this poor girl went up against demons, hence the title.
The actual story revolves around a priest who attempted the exorcism and since she died, he is being charged with negligent homicide. He is defended by an agnostic, but the prosecution (oddly) gets a Methodist. This half of the story is pretty cut and dry as the prosecution shows the medical side and how thepriest should have hospitalized her for her own good.
The other half of the story is the dramatization of what Emily Rose went through along with some other correlating events. Here's where the creepy side of the story comes in as Emily sees and hears things and experiences some really whacked out stuff that creeps you out as it's occurring.
But the down side of this whole bit is that no one seems to be able to turn on a light. I don't know about the rest of the world, but if I hear something in my house, I start flipping lights on so I can see it. These people wander through dark (night-movie-lit) houses looking for stuff. Miss Rose walked through a darkened dorm building and left her door wide open to her darkened dorm room. Who seriously does this?
Other than people;s inability to realistically find a light switch, I thought it played out well and creepy. Everyone seemed to get what they wanted and ees were opened during the story. Not the best ever, but still not bad.
M -- 1931 -- NR
Germany's first talkie from 1931 stars Peter Lorre as a serial child killer with Fritz Lang (one of the top German film directors of the time) at the helm. Naturally, I was watching it with subtitles which didn't help the experience, but overall, the film is paced well and told a solid serial killer thriller.
It has a lot of good points. The relation between the police and the crime underworld, for example was wonderfully done with simultaneous, intercut meeting between the two organizations. The police ar becoming a laughingstock having not cuaght the killer for 8 months, but the crime syndicates are getting walled in by the police raids looking for the killer which hurts their "business." Both groups set out to catch the killer at the same time. The police take the more cerebral route of looking for psychological profiles, while the underground just hires beggars to watch every child in town. Both group find him at about the same time, but while the cops wait at his house, the underground captures him and holds him on "trial."
It is this trial that makes a statement about justice and the criminal justice system. It says that a criminal is safer in the system than with regular people, a fact that is all too often painfully clear. No matter what the crime or how unfair or how brutal that crime was, the system always endeavors to treat the criminal with respect and dignity.
The biggest weakness, in my opinion, was an attempt to bring sympathy for the killer during this trial. This attempt was completely in vain since a guy who kills children will rarely gain sympathy of any kind, no matter how fictional the story. Another problem this script had was a lack of familiarity with the characters. A lot of characters were introduced throughout the film and only a handful managed to get names. We got some knowledge of some of them, but most of the characters remained 2 dimensional cutouts of cops or crimelords.
The only confusion was some sort of cerebral tag on the ending that made no sense in context with the rest of the film. I don't know what that was.
It has a lot of good points. The relation between the police and the crime underworld, for example was wonderfully done with simultaneous, intercut meeting between the two organizations. The police ar becoming a laughingstock having not cuaght the killer for 8 months, but the crime syndicates are getting walled in by the police raids looking for the killer which hurts their "business." Both groups set out to catch the killer at the same time. The police take the more cerebral route of looking for psychological profiles, while the underground just hires beggars to watch every child in town. Both group find him at about the same time, but while the cops wait at his house, the underground captures him and holds him on "trial."
It is this trial that makes a statement about justice and the criminal justice system. It says that a criminal is safer in the system than with regular people, a fact that is all too often painfully clear. No matter what the crime or how unfair or how brutal that crime was, the system always endeavors to treat the criminal with respect and dignity.
The biggest weakness, in my opinion, was an attempt to bring sympathy for the killer during this trial. This attempt was completely in vain since a guy who kills children will rarely gain sympathy of any kind, no matter how fictional the story. Another problem this script had was a lack of familiarity with the characters. A lot of characters were introduced throughout the film and only a handful managed to get names. We got some knowledge of some of them, but most of the characters remained 2 dimensional cutouts of cops or crimelords.
The only confusion was some sort of cerebral tag on the ending that made no sense in context with the rest of the film. I don't know what that was.
The Maltese Falcon -- 1941 -- NR
A decent noir film following the investigation of the murder of a private detective's partner after he is put on the trail of a man that a woman suspects knows about her sister. The woman is more than she seems as she spins one lie after another putting the private dick on the right trail...sort of before her story changes again. It's got some nice twists as the story goes along, and really the only complaint is that the pacing runs a little slow in some areas.
Some modern audiences might not like it because it is very talky and cerebral like a lot of the older movies are, and it would help if the lead actress were able to...well...act. Compared to Bogart and two other actors who would go onto Casablanca the following year, one of whom is Peter Lorre, who I watched in M from ten years earlier in Germany, her dialogue delivery was consistently flat until very near the end when she finally came close to being in character. Perhaps, since her character made a habit of lying, it was part of that, but for me, the charade didn't work.
Other than this, it was a good film, and worth the time to watch it. It contains the lines, "Hey, what's this?" "It's the stuff that dreams are made of."
Some modern audiences might not like it because it is very talky and cerebral like a lot of the older movies are, and it would help if the lead actress were able to...well...act. Compared to Bogart and two other actors who would go onto Casablanca the following year, one of whom is Peter Lorre, who I watched in M from ten years earlier in Germany, her dialogue delivery was consistently flat until very near the end when she finally came close to being in character. Perhaps, since her character made a habit of lying, it was part of that, but for me, the charade didn't work.
Other than this, it was a good film, and worth the time to watch it. It contains the lines, "Hey, what's this?" "It's the stuff that dreams are made of."
Minority Report -- 2002 -- PG-13
In 2054, people are no longer tried for murder in Washinton, D.C. Instead, psychics called pre-cogs predict that someone will be killed, and the "pre-crime" unit moves in and arrests the person before the crime can be committed. The system apparently works since D.C. boasts no murders in the last 6 years. However, one cop believes the system maybhave a problem when he is predetermined to murder someone he doesn't even know.
This movie is a cool sci-fi ride that kicks off a little slow, but when it starts moving, it really moves. John Anderton's motives for his actions and past are completely believable as well as the reasoning behind what REALLY happens (no spoilers here, sorry). The plot zips through several interesting and intriguing twists, at least one of which I didn't see coming. I noticed my counter hitting 1:45 when the movie is slated for 2:30, and wondered what in the world was going to go on for the next 45 minutes...yeah, I got a little surprise, and for me, that's saying something.
Overall, it has good effects, great direction (Steven Spielberg), and a great story that hooks from one end to the other.
This movie is a cool sci-fi ride that kicks off a little slow, but when it starts moving, it really moves. John Anderton's motives for his actions and past are completely believable as well as the reasoning behind what REALLY happens (no spoilers here, sorry). The plot zips through several interesting and intriguing twists, at least one of which I didn't see coming. I noticed my counter hitting 1:45 when the movie is slated for 2:30, and wondered what in the world was going to go on for the next 45 minutes...yeah, I got a little surprise, and for me, that's saying something.
Overall, it has good effects, great direction (Steven Spielberg), and a great story that hooks from one end to the other.
Memento -- 2000 -- R
A man has a condition in which he has no short term memory and as a result, can make no new memories. However, he is trying to track down the man who raped and killed his wife, so he uses notes, tattoos, and photographs to guide his life.
On the surface, this is a really cool movie. In order for the audience to get the feeling of having to start where you are and go from there, the bulk of the movie is played in reverse. We start with the final scenes and then the one before that, and the one before that, etc. Each time there is a shift, we go to the very beginning of this story (in black and white to easily differentiate them) and get some exposition about his condition and what he's doing. Often this exposition plays into what happened or is happening in the backwards story. It's a trippy little effect and really does help with the feeling of disorientation that someone with this condition must experience.
The beginning and end culminate in a heck of a zinger at the end that I, frankly, never saw coming. They had set up the whole plot from one angle, and then pulled the rug out, but it made sense...sort of.
Now for the problems...the DVD I watched had an option to play the movie in "chronological order" meaning it shuffled all the tracks on the DVD to play it in what would be beginning to end. Not only does this show the story in a whole different light (that is equally interesting), but it also brings to light all the little problems you miss watching it as normal since your mind has trouble wrapping around the disorientation.
First, for no short term memory, this guy remembers stuff remarkably well. They do make an attempt to explain this by conditioning, and perhaps that's what he's done, but he always seems to know too much about what's going on, but always not quite enough to allow him to see through what people are doing to him.
There were two people who apparently knew Leonard before the story began, but it never explains how they knew him or even why this guy was singled out by the cop for Leonard's purpose (I say it this way to avoid spoilers). That one point really frustrated me more than anything else. I can get past the memory thing with an easy enough explanation, but this seems to be an important piece of exposition and it was not there.
Overall, this was a really good film and made for a good thriller. The technique employed to help the audience get a piece of Leonard's "condition" was supreme. But that missing bit of exposition was just annoying.
On the surface, this is a really cool movie. In order for the audience to get the feeling of having to start where you are and go from there, the bulk of the movie is played in reverse. We start with the final scenes and then the one before that, and the one before that, etc. Each time there is a shift, we go to the very beginning of this story (in black and white to easily differentiate them) and get some exposition about his condition and what he's doing. Often this exposition plays into what happened or is happening in the backwards story. It's a trippy little effect and really does help with the feeling of disorientation that someone with this condition must experience.
The beginning and end culminate in a heck of a zinger at the end that I, frankly, never saw coming. They had set up the whole plot from one angle, and then pulled the rug out, but it made sense...sort of.
Now for the problems...the DVD I watched had an option to play the movie in "chronological order" meaning it shuffled all the tracks on the DVD to play it in what would be beginning to end. Not only does this show the story in a whole different light (that is equally interesting), but it also brings to light all the little problems you miss watching it as normal since your mind has trouble wrapping around the disorientation.
First, for no short term memory, this guy remembers stuff remarkably well. They do make an attempt to explain this by conditioning, and perhaps that's what he's done, but he always seems to know too much about what's going on, but always not quite enough to allow him to see through what people are doing to him.
There were two people who apparently knew Leonard before the story began, but it never explains how they knew him or even why this guy was singled out by the cop for Leonard's purpose (I say it this way to avoid spoilers). That one point really frustrated me more than anything else. I can get past the memory thing with an easy enough explanation, but this seems to be an important piece of exposition and it was not there.
Overall, this was a really good film and made for a good thriller. The technique employed to help the audience get a piece of Leonard's "condition" was supreme. But that missing bit of exposition was just annoying.
I Know What You Did Last Summer -- 1997 -- R
What is basically Kevin Williamson's follow-up to Scream is a rough adaptation of a novel about a group of teens who hit a guy crossing the road in the middle of the night. I saw this film a few years ago, and with the coming of a third film in this franchise, I decided to watch it again through my more informed viewpoint of films as a whole.
What I find is not a standard teen hack-n-slash, but more of a cat and mouse thriller where the mysterious killer opts to mess with his victims' head before they die. There is one death that I don't get and served little purpose beyond freaking a character out later, but the film was decent enough to get over that rather uneventful end.
It differs from other horror movies in another way too. Rather than isolating the characters from the world as most horror flicks do, this one isolates them psychologically. They can easily get help if they need to, but based on their assessment of the situation, they can't or they'll be in deep trouble. One might argue deep trouble is better than dead, but it works in context for awhile.
There were several hiccups in the direction, however, that were nothing short of clumsiness. A character can bust out a car window, climbs through it, and then land in the broken glass, and runn off without a cut on her legs or feet. Another character swam through the water, but when he climbed out, his hair was in perfect place. The final bit of dialogue before the tag ending was also incredibly cheesy as if everything else got a rewrite but that. I also found a dislike to the way the adults are portrayed. As usual, they are goofs who believe nothing the main attackees have to say.
Finally, the real part that bugged me more than anything else was the Egan house and that it was SOOO necessary to go there...twice. Te first time they went, it was a normal house. It had four sides, and nothing special when the characters walked around it. Sure, Missy was creepy, but hey, it's that kind of movie. The second time, it had this weird Texas Chainsaw Massacre thing going on with all kinds of bird corpses hanging everywhere. I think the visit was a detriment to Julie's character since she didn't seem like the type to be extroverted enough to go. Maybe that was my big beef.
So, the base plot works fairly well. It has an orignial angle to it that is usually not explored in this type of film. I liked the suspenseful moments where you know where the killer is and you are waiting on edge for him to strike...or not. The cat and mouse stuff was great. The shortcomings were very, very minor, and could have been easily corrected had the powers that be taken the time or attention to do so.
As a final side, I can't spoil it, but there's a fabulous irony in with the guy who was hit when the history is revealed. It's never brought up, but I get a personal kick out of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
