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 Horror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Horror. Show all posts
Monday, June 10, 2019
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Doom -- 2005 -- R
I watched the DVD Unrated version.
I don't know what it was about this movie. It's like a guilty pleasure. We're talking about a film that is mostly cliche sci-fi action.
I don't mind admitting this. Rooms stay dark for some reason, even though the lights get turned on in some rooms. In the dark rooms, no one tries. The guys are pulled off an imminent leave for the mission. Yeah, didn't see that coming... The group is from the Marines. always a sci-fi favorite. Each Marine has his own nickname. One was killed moments after his flashlight conveniently went out. Shots are clearly setup for something to appear in that big open space to the character's right. Kinda takes away the surprise. I asked myself why one sequence was so freakin' long as a guy conveniently dropped his gun clip causing it to skitter across the floor just out of reach. He was in a bathroom and instead of just going for his clip by opening the bathroom stall door and diving for it, he crawls under the door and reaches for it. I'm waiting for him to get pummelled, but as these movies go, that's too easy. It wasn't suspenseful; just annoying.
The character development is remarkably decent. Even though we get a whole slew of characters to likely give us a high body count, the development of these characters was done as well as it could be. Each had his share of a combination of cliches and flaws. My only complain on these was the character who was apparently added at the last minute to fill the need to be a kill. He had no development at all. He stood guard for awhile while everyone else ran around, and then inexplicably, he was used to come in a rare threesome to a particular room where he remained out of sight until the bad creature thing came by and lopped off his head.
However, in the late second / early third act, something happens. The movie actually starts to get interesting. Character development comes to a head as characters get knocked off. With the numbers dropping, characters get more screen time and you learn more about them. It even got exciting. The revelation of the creatures' origin was not much of a twist, nor was an escape by them. The big twist was the leader's solution to the problem. It was completely whacked, but made perfect sense.
But then we had something big happen. Here's the point where if you allow yourself to be sucked into the film, it becomes the guilty pleasure. A five minute plus continuous shot first person sequence styled right out of the game. The camera zip-pans around finding creatures coming up behind you and on top of you, and the gun is just going nuts as you're being attacked. From a forensical perspective, it's a little silly, but as just an entertaining sequence, it was awesome.
We ended with the obligatory and somewhat silly fistfight / wrestling match (we're dealing with The Rock here). You know, the kind where they put down their guns and duke it out like men (or monsters or whatever).
So when the credits rolled with its heavy metal rock parental advisory lyrics song at the end, I found myself stunned to discover I liked it. The movie is very entertaining. It had a decent plot, good characters, and some decent directing. It has some weak points, but I am able to overlook them.
But here's the catch: This movie is based on a video game. Personally, I think linking movies to video games is a horrible idea because the video game audience doesn't understand the drama in the film, and the movie audience doesn't understand the video game elements. The filmmakers here wisely made a film loosely based on the game and it's essential plot, but did not duplicate the video game. If you loved the game, you'll hate the movie. If you can detach yourself from the game, or have never played Doom 3 (the game this movie's plot is based on), you just might enjoy it. The title was this movie's doom as it lost over $40 million at the box office according to IMDB. Hope its video sales are better. I admit to buying a copy. I told you it was a guilty pleasure.
I don't know what it was about this movie. It's like a guilty pleasure. We're talking about a film that is mostly cliche sci-fi action.
I don't mind admitting this. Rooms stay dark for some reason, even though the lights get turned on in some rooms. In the dark rooms, no one tries. The guys are pulled off an imminent leave for the mission. Yeah, didn't see that coming... The group is from the Marines. always a sci-fi favorite. Each Marine has his own nickname. One was killed moments after his flashlight conveniently went out. Shots are clearly setup for something to appear in that big open space to the character's right. Kinda takes away the surprise. I asked myself why one sequence was so freakin' long as a guy conveniently dropped his gun clip causing it to skitter across the floor just out of reach. He was in a bathroom and instead of just going for his clip by opening the bathroom stall door and diving for it, he crawls under the door and reaches for it. I'm waiting for him to get pummelled, but as these movies go, that's too easy. It wasn't suspenseful; just annoying.
The character development is remarkably decent. Even though we get a whole slew of characters to likely give us a high body count, the development of these characters was done as well as it could be. Each had his share of a combination of cliches and flaws. My only complain on these was the character who was apparently added at the last minute to fill the need to be a kill. He had no development at all. He stood guard for awhile while everyone else ran around, and then inexplicably, he was used to come in a rare threesome to a particular room where he remained out of sight until the bad creature thing came by and lopped off his head.
However, in the late second / early third act, something happens. The movie actually starts to get interesting. Character development comes to a head as characters get knocked off. With the numbers dropping, characters get more screen time and you learn more about them. It even got exciting. The revelation of the creatures' origin was not much of a twist, nor was an escape by them. The big twist was the leader's solution to the problem. It was completely whacked, but made perfect sense.
But then we had something big happen. Here's the point where if you allow yourself to be sucked into the film, it becomes the guilty pleasure. A five minute plus continuous shot first person sequence styled right out of the game. The camera zip-pans around finding creatures coming up behind you and on top of you, and the gun is just going nuts as you're being attacked. From a forensical perspective, it's a little silly, but as just an entertaining sequence, it was awesome.
We ended with the obligatory and somewhat silly fistfight / wrestling match (we're dealing with The Rock here). You know, the kind where they put down their guns and duke it out like men (or monsters or whatever).
So when the credits rolled with its heavy metal rock parental advisory lyrics song at the end, I found myself stunned to discover I liked it. The movie is very entertaining. It had a decent plot, good characters, and some decent directing. It has some weak points, but I am able to overlook them.
But here's the catch: This movie is based on a video game. Personally, I think linking movies to video games is a horrible idea because the video game audience doesn't understand the drama in the film, and the movie audience doesn't understand the video game elements. The filmmakers here wisely made a film loosely based on the game and it's essential plot, but did not duplicate the video game. If you loved the game, you'll hate the movie. If you can detach yourself from the game, or have never played Doom 3 (the game this movie's plot is based on), you just might enjoy it. The title was this movie's doom as it lost over $40 million at the box office according to IMDB. Hope its video sales are better. I admit to buying a copy. I told you it was a guilty pleasure.
The Fog -- 2005 -- PG-13
This is a remake of the 1980 John Carpenter film that I have yet to see. We have a little island town with a dark past that finally comes back to haunt them in the form of a fog hiding the supernatural attackers.
Like many teen scream flicks, this one lacks in the character department first and foremost. The main male lead, whose name I don't even remember, has little to no development at all, even though he seems to be the main character. More time is given to the female lead, Elizabeth, but she up and does silly things that no one in their right mind would do (like hearing a noise and walking outside all the way down to the beach in her underwear). There are other characters, but what development they are granted is limited solely to the scenes they are in....if you're lucky.
One question I wanted to know waswhy these spirits chose this moment to return. There seemed to be a bigger backstory here that they never got into. The spirits seem to have a tie-in with the lead female, Elizabeth, but rather than explore this thread, the movie moves onward to another impressive, special effects-laden kill.
Elizabeth's final actions in the film save the day...but why does she do them? Nothing to this point indicated what needed to be done, and likewise when she did it, it occurred without reasoning or explanation. I thought I had a clue as to what was going on based on what I did know, but it didn't go that way and instead, did something that didn't make a lot of sense.
So while the pacing was decent, the characters were paper thin, and the plot had multiple pitfalls. I wanted to know why this started, or at least someone say there was nothing to trigger it. It might have been triggered by a bag of goodies that was torn open near the beginning, but that really doesn't make a lot of sense...however, it's all we have to go on.
Like many teen scream flicks, this one lacks in the character department first and foremost. The main male lead, whose name I don't even remember, has little to no development at all, even though he seems to be the main character. More time is given to the female lead, Elizabeth, but she up and does silly things that no one in their right mind would do (like hearing a noise and walking outside all the way down to the beach in her underwear). There are other characters, but what development they are granted is limited solely to the scenes they are in....if you're lucky.
One question I wanted to know waswhy these spirits chose this moment to return. There seemed to be a bigger backstory here that they never got into. The spirits seem to have a tie-in with the lead female, Elizabeth, but rather than explore this thread, the movie moves onward to another impressive, special effects-laden kill.
Elizabeth's final actions in the film save the day...but why does she do them? Nothing to this point indicated what needed to be done, and likewise when she did it, it occurred without reasoning or explanation. I thought I had a clue as to what was going on based on what I did know, but it didn't go that way and instead, did something that didn't make a lot of sense.
So while the pacing was decent, the characters were paper thin, and the plot had multiple pitfalls. I wanted to know why this started, or at least someone say there was nothing to trigger it. It might have been triggered by a bag of goodies that was torn open near the beginning, but that really doesn't make a lot of sense...however, it's all we have to go on.
The Cave -- 2005 -- PG-13
So this movie follows a bunch of cave divers who like to explore the underwater world deep within a cave. They go deep in one cave, and once trapped, they discover sinister creatures down there.
The premise is clever and really shows how a good premise can get a movie made, but some of the execution is shoddy. Some of the shots seemed premature in that they didn't make sense until some later shots occurred.
one of the character actions didn't make sense until they explained, again, later. They hopped a ride on a water slide leading down a waterfall. I'm thinking, why are they going down? I thought they wanted out. Learned later in the film (not explained, but I picked up on it) that the water has to come out somewhere, so that worked.
Sometimes, the characters did things that really didn't make sense either. For instance, if I went down a tunnel into a chamber where I was attacked by a bunch of cave scorpians and then one of these freaky demon creatures, I wouldn't go back to everyone and say, "hey, I found the way," and then RETURN TO THAT CHAMBER! Children, we call that stupidity and find another way out.
This happened multiple times during the film too.
Finally, the group inevitably splits up after disagreeing about the best way out. One group climbs up some walls and down others which would put the fittest climber to shame and wear him out. The other decides to follow another underground current and see where it comes out.
Well, the climbers win when they find an exit. However, one of them heroically (or stupidly) goes back in climbing up and down walls AGAIN to find everyone else who followed the current! I'm thinking wait a minute! You don't know where that current went. It could have led straight out as well. Of course it didn't so he's a big hero, but somehow the tunnels led through a few more passages and...ta-da! right into the chamber where the first group was waiting. Wow, what are the astronomically minute chances of THAT happening? The climb was more believable.
Finally, there was this deal with a parasite in the cave water which was clever. It gave the thing a bit of a time element...except...what you're telling me is that through all that climbing, falling, bumping, and crashing, no one got a single scrape on their perfect form to admit this parasite? Having some trouble here.
Characters were ok. They weren't spectacular, but these types of films tend to lack in that area. Thin if any backstory, and very little motivational explanation beyond the character stereotypes. Overall, the combination of the attempt to make us care along with the sheer stupidity of some of the actions balanced us out to curiosity but not a relationship.
The plot itself was well formed and relatively sound. The pacing was fine. The underwater shots were amazing. I liked the creatures and the concept behind them. It basically had a big problem in believability allowing our hero to do too much to be heroic. If you can suspend your disbelief enough, it's good. If you prefer believability, not so good.
The premise is clever and really shows how a good premise can get a movie made, but some of the execution is shoddy. Some of the shots seemed premature in that they didn't make sense until some later shots occurred.
one of the character actions didn't make sense until they explained, again, later. They hopped a ride on a water slide leading down a waterfall. I'm thinking, why are they going down? I thought they wanted out. Learned later in the film (not explained, but I picked up on it) that the water has to come out somewhere, so that worked.
Sometimes, the characters did things that really didn't make sense either. For instance, if I went down a tunnel into a chamber where I was attacked by a bunch of cave scorpians and then one of these freaky demon creatures, I wouldn't go back to everyone and say, "hey, I found the way," and then RETURN TO THAT CHAMBER! Children, we call that stupidity and find another way out.
This happened multiple times during the film too.
Finally, the group inevitably splits up after disagreeing about the best way out. One group climbs up some walls and down others which would put the fittest climber to shame and wear him out. The other decides to follow another underground current and see where it comes out.
Well, the climbers win when they find an exit. However, one of them heroically (or stupidly) goes back in climbing up and down walls AGAIN to find everyone else who followed the current! I'm thinking wait a minute! You don't know where that current went. It could have led straight out as well. Of course it didn't so he's a big hero, but somehow the tunnels led through a few more passages and...ta-da! right into the chamber where the first group was waiting. Wow, what are the astronomically minute chances of THAT happening? The climb was more believable.
Finally, there was this deal with a parasite in the cave water which was clever. It gave the thing a bit of a time element...except...what you're telling me is that through all that climbing, falling, bumping, and crashing, no one got a single scrape on their perfect form to admit this parasite? Having some trouble here.
Characters were ok. They weren't spectacular, but these types of films tend to lack in that area. Thin if any backstory, and very little motivational explanation beyond the character stereotypes. Overall, the combination of the attempt to make us care along with the sheer stupidity of some of the actions balanced us out to curiosity but not a relationship.
The plot itself was well formed and relatively sound. The pacing was fine. The underwater shots were amazing. I liked the creatures and the concept behind them. It basically had a big problem in believability allowing our hero to do too much to be heroic. If you can suspend your disbelief enough, it's good. If you prefer believability, not so good.
Constantine -- 2005 -- R
If you watch this one, you'll like it or hate it. It's the type of fime that requires you to shut off the logic center of your brain and simply go with the ground rules that the movie lays down. If you try to make it religious, you'll hate it.
Now that we've gotten past that, this was a decent film. The main character had a huge flaw and a backstory that tied directly into the body of the film and the story. It was actually quite brilliant. The plot flowed very nicely throughout, and once you hit the end with minimal untied ends.
The only real complaint I had was this guy that was at the beginning. He kept showing up here and there throughout the film without any real intro of who he was or why he was doing what he was doing. We slowly get the idea that he is carrying an artifcat most necessary to the completion of the main plot, but how he becomes supernatural is really never fully explained. Pondering it after the movie ends, I can come up with an explanation plausible within the structure of the film, but I shouldn't have to. This film explained everything except that one point...maybe I missed it.
I might as well hit on the inevitable all-knowing character who lives is a weird location, but seems to have all the answers as long as you know the question. Constantine also has a "sidekick" that disappears for the central portion of the film when he isn't needed. It seems he serves his base purpose in the plot and goes "poof" when we don't need him.
Overall, it made for a good action film, and makes a borderline superhero type of film. I could see it as an underground comics type of hero, and I believe he is actually based on a comic book character. The most difficult part of watching this film is forgetting everything you know about religion and accepting what the film is saying for the duration. However, if you can do this, it's a great ride.
Now that we've gotten past that, this was a decent film. The main character had a huge flaw and a backstory that tied directly into the body of the film and the story. It was actually quite brilliant. The plot flowed very nicely throughout, and once you hit the end with minimal untied ends.
The only real complaint I had was this guy that was at the beginning. He kept showing up here and there throughout the film without any real intro of who he was or why he was doing what he was doing. We slowly get the idea that he is carrying an artifcat most necessary to the completion of the main plot, but how he becomes supernatural is really never fully explained. Pondering it after the movie ends, I can come up with an explanation plausible within the structure of the film, but I shouldn't have to. This film explained everything except that one point...maybe I missed it.
I might as well hit on the inevitable all-knowing character who lives is a weird location, but seems to have all the answers as long as you know the question. Constantine also has a "sidekick" that disappears for the central portion of the film when he isn't needed. It seems he serves his base purpose in the plot and goes "poof" when we don't need him.
Overall, it made for a good action film, and makes a borderline superhero type of film. I could see it as an underground comics type of hero, and I believe he is actually based on a comic book character. The most difficult part of watching this film is forgetting everything you know about religion and accepting what the film is saying for the duration. However, if you can do this, it's a great ride.
Frankenstein -- 1931 -- NR
The 1932 version of the film is nothing but plot. Boris Karloff definitely established the visual look and feel of the legendary monster, the sets are ominous enough, and the effects solid for 1931, but the script just had a plot and ran through it with no attempt to create any kind of characters or their relationships with one another.
Again, I am surprised at comments about these classics when they are purported to be the "greatest of all time" in respect to their genres. I suppose in that aspect that is true. Most monster movies have no characterization, and this one is no different.
Again, I am surprised at comments about these classics when they are purported to be the "greatest of all time" in respect to their genres. I suppose in that aspect that is true. Most monster movies have no characterization, and this one is no different.
The Bride of Frankenstein -- 1935 -- NR
As with all horror movies, Frankenstein got itself a sequel in 1935. However, where Frankenstein was all plot and no character, the Bride of Frankenstein has a paper thin plot leaving the writers with no choice but to fill their 75 minutes developing the characters. This results in a film that is far more satisfying than the first, creating a real sympathy for the monster and those around him.
Most of the development time was spent on the monster in rounding him out (they wisely gave him the ability to speak), and the movie could have been further improved by spending some time with Dr. Frankenstein and his wife. This aspect was lightly explored near the end, and I feel that conflict could have been much deeper had they taken just a little more time with it.
A vast improvement over the original.
Most of the development time was spent on the monster in rounding him out (they wisely gave him the ability to speak), and the movie could have been further improved by spending some time with Dr. Frankenstein and his wife. This aspect was lightly explored near the end, and I feel that conflict could have been much deeper had they taken just a little more time with it.
A vast improvement over the original.
The Exorcist -- 1973 -- R
Proclaimed the scariest movie of all time, the Exorcist has equally been called a journey of one man's faith. It involves a 12-year old girl who is possessed by a demon, completely throwing off the prognoses of doctors leading her mother to seek an exorcism through the help of a priest who is losing his faith following the death of his own mother. This movie is really creepy in some parts and downright bizarre in others. The prospect of such a thing actually occurring would be frightening.
This is not a traditional scary movie in any sense of the word, but an opinion of how bad a demon possession can get. The demon (once it takes over) is quite vulgar in every way, but how many scary movies can you find where the line "The power of Christ compels you" is spoken at least a dozen times in perfect context?
Great characters for the most part with only the part of Burke Dennings getting the short end of the character stick despite the implied size of the role from the other characters. The chld knew him; the mom was sweet on him; but he died without speaking so much as a handful of lines and having very minimal screen time (most of it drunk during a party).
It's not for all horror hounds due its very dramatic aspects (a component lacking in a lot of horror), but overall, a good watch.
This is not a traditional scary movie in any sense of the word, but an opinion of how bad a demon possession can get. The demon (once it takes over) is quite vulgar in every way, but how many scary movies can you find where the line "The power of Christ compels you" is spoken at least a dozen times in perfect context?
Great characters for the most part with only the part of Burke Dennings getting the short end of the character stick despite the implied size of the role from the other characters. The chld knew him; the mom was sweet on him; but he died without speaking so much as a handful of lines and having very minimal screen time (most of it drunk during a party).
It's not for all horror hounds due its very dramatic aspects (a component lacking in a lot of horror), but overall, a good watch.
Dead Ringers -- 1988 -- R
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.
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.
Dracula -- 1992 -- R
aka: Bram Stoker's Dracula
Despite the title, Francis Ford Coppola's version of the classic vampire story holds true to the novel in some ways, but departs completely in others. The most outstanding example is that the novel is no where near as erotic and sensual as this film is. Pretty much the entire sequence of Dracula following Mina around town never occurred in the book. In fact, Mina is nearly nonexistent from the novel except where Lucy is concerned, and then she runs off to Jonathon upon hearing from him.
The relationship between Mina and Dracula is an element of the film only. The novel contained no Elisabeta and no sequence where Dracula was damned. Mina's desire to drink the count's blood, while so willing in the film, is described like this in the book: "The attitude of the two had a terrible resemblance to a child forcing a kitten's nose into a saucer of milk to compel it to drink." Mina herself says later that she was forced to suffocate or drink.
The film taken on its own, it plays remarkably well. The characters are fairly well rounded, and the plot moves at a good pace. The relationship between Mina and Jonathon is not as well as it really should have been made, since you feel like she should be with Dracula and even feel a bit sorry for the count when he loses her.
It did do a good job of condensing the novel into a conhesive whole with the wealth of characters contained in the book. Dracula is extremely creepy and very well conceived in this version. He doesn't walk; he glides. His shadow has a mind of its own. Very awesome. He also plays as a very threatening character; one to be feared and not underestimated.
Compared to novel: extra plot never contained kind of takes away from the horror element. As a film alone: excellent.
Despite the title, Francis Ford Coppola's version of the classic vampire story holds true to the novel in some ways, but departs completely in others. The most outstanding example is that the novel is no where near as erotic and sensual as this film is. Pretty much the entire sequence of Dracula following Mina around town never occurred in the book. In fact, Mina is nearly nonexistent from the novel except where Lucy is concerned, and then she runs off to Jonathon upon hearing from him.
The relationship between Mina and Dracula is an element of the film only. The novel contained no Elisabeta and no sequence where Dracula was damned. Mina's desire to drink the count's blood, while so willing in the film, is described like this in the book: "The attitude of the two had a terrible resemblance to a child forcing a kitten's nose into a saucer of milk to compel it to drink." Mina herself says later that she was forced to suffocate or drink.
The film taken on its own, it plays remarkably well. The characters are fairly well rounded, and the plot moves at a good pace. The relationship between Mina and Jonathon is not as well as it really should have been made, since you feel like she should be with Dracula and even feel a bit sorry for the count when he loses her.
It did do a good job of condensing the novel into a conhesive whole with the wealth of characters contained in the book. Dracula is extremely creepy and very well conceived in this version. He doesn't walk; he glides. His shadow has a mind of its own. Very awesome. He also plays as a very threatening character; one to be feared and not underestimated.
Compared to novel: extra plot never contained kind of takes away from the horror element. As a film alone: excellent.
Audition -- 2002 -- NR
This was a Japanese film with English subtitles. Had it been reviewed by the MPAA, then it would have an R rating for violence and sexuality.
Seven years after a man loses his wife, both his son and best friend encourage him to try to marry again. His friend, who is a producer, stages an audition to help the guy find the perfect wife. He centers on one girl, and even though his friend says she is wrong for him, he goes for her anyway.
This whole film is a slow creepy build to the final scenes where the girl's true intentions become clear. This definitely qualifies as a psychological thriller as the man learns more and more about the girl's spotty and almost non-existant past and the horrors she leaves behind her. The characters were well rounded and believable, and it had a fair share of truly freakish moments to make your skin crawl. It really is a worthwhile viewing of a film, even though you have to deal with subtitles.
There are some odd points. One was when the guy wanted to know where the girl lived, but he had no address for her. He had her phone number, and his son was seen on the internet. What one thought popped into my head? Reverse phone number lookup. Did anyone mention it? No.
The other point was a big one. This guy was never put forth to be psychic or anything else other than a normal guy. Yet as he explored, he got flashes of what went on in various places, and right before the climax, there was this long dream-ish sequence where the girl's backstory and life is almost completely filled in. He was even in the girl's house, a place he had never gone to. In a movie as strong as this was, this seemed like a cop-outish way to deliver a large amount of exposition in a short time frame, since it felt so clairvoyant in nature.
This aside, the flm was very good, and worth watching if you don't mind disturbing images. Some of the final scene even made my stomach turn.
Seven years after a man loses his wife, both his son and best friend encourage him to try to marry again. His friend, who is a producer, stages an audition to help the guy find the perfect wife. He centers on one girl, and even though his friend says she is wrong for him, he goes for her anyway.
This whole film is a slow creepy build to the final scenes where the girl's true intentions become clear. This definitely qualifies as a psychological thriller as the man learns more and more about the girl's spotty and almost non-existant past and the horrors she leaves behind her. The characters were well rounded and believable, and it had a fair share of truly freakish moments to make your skin crawl. It really is a worthwhile viewing of a film, even though you have to deal with subtitles.
There are some odd points. One was when the guy wanted to know where the girl lived, but he had no address for her. He had her phone number, and his son was seen on the internet. What one thought popped into my head? Reverse phone number lookup. Did anyone mention it? No.
The other point was a big one. This guy was never put forth to be psychic or anything else other than a normal guy. Yet as he explored, he got flashes of what went on in various places, and right before the climax, there was this long dream-ish sequence where the girl's backstory and life is almost completely filled in. He was even in the girl's house, a place he had never gone to. In a movie as strong as this was, this seemed like a cop-outish way to deliver a large amount of exposition in a short time frame, since it felt so clairvoyant in nature.
This aside, the flm was very good, and worth watching if you don't mind disturbing images. Some of the final scene even made my stomach turn.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde -- 1931 -- NR
This early screen adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson's perenially adapted novel of good vs evil plays out very, very well in this early incarnation. The initial change was well setup, the character relationships were well defined, the actual change played out realistically rather than cheesy, and the Jekyll/Hyde struggle was very well done.
Some complaints: the silly complaint is that because this is an early talkie version of the story, the pronunciation of the name was not as standardized as it is today. In this version, Jekyll's name is pronounced "Jeekle". Made me nuts.
On a more relevant note, I felt that Hyde was occasionally too rational. He is supposed to be Jekyll's dark side, and it makes perfect sense for his dark side to have some rationale, just as his rational side has some darkness, but Hyde gave a very rationale speech and was very much Jekyll in Hyde's clothing on a scene near the end when he had to convince a friend to get the antidote for him. I can see a little rationale, but that was really too far. I had trouble believing that Hyde would be THAT rational, regardless of the situation.
That aside on a first watching, I really enjoyed it, and felt it was a worthwhile film. The version I watched on DVD also has the 1941 version, and the qualty of the recording is quite good and clear.
Finally, as a bit of trivia, this is not the first screen version of this story. There have been over 50 screen versions of the story dating back to 1908. Before this version in 1931, there were 9 different silent versions of the story, three of them in 1920.
Some complaints: the silly complaint is that because this is an early talkie version of the story, the pronunciation of the name was not as standardized as it is today. In this version, Jekyll's name is pronounced "Jeekle". Made me nuts.
On a more relevant note, I felt that Hyde was occasionally too rational. He is supposed to be Jekyll's dark side, and it makes perfect sense for his dark side to have some rationale, just as his rational side has some darkness, but Hyde gave a very rationale speech and was very much Jekyll in Hyde's clothing on a scene near the end when he had to convince a friend to get the antidote for him. I can see a little rationale, but that was really too far. I had trouble believing that Hyde would be THAT rational, regardless of the situation.
That aside on a first watching, I really enjoyed it, and felt it was a worthwhile film. The version I watched on DVD also has the 1941 version, and the qualty of the recording is quite good and clear.
Finally, as a bit of trivia, this is not the first screen version of this story. There have been over 50 screen versions of the story dating back to 1908. Before this version in 1931, there were 9 different silent versions of the story, three of them in 1920.
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari -- 1919 -- NR
This was a weird and interesting film. It involves a Dr. Caligari who has a somnambulist (someone who sleeps all the time) named Cesare that can tell your fortune. Meanwhile, while he's in town, murders are occurring. A man who lost his best friend to the murderer works to unravel the mystery of Caligari and Cesare before more deaths occur.
For a silent film, it was interesting to watch, and easy enough to follow. The intertitles, though long in nature, were done in an interesting to read font that fit with the character of the piece. The sets were really bizarre to look at as well (I believe this film was classified as German expressionism). It even had a decent twist at the end.
For some weak points, the characters were hardly delved into at all beyond their basic function in the story, and we weren't even told the name of the girl until near the end. Almost no relationships were established between the characters -- only a thin one between the main character and his best friend who was murdered -- so I believe that made the story a little thinner than it could have been.
For a film that was still falls under the experimental time of filmmaking, it managed to age very well over the years. Despite its weak points, we did get some change in the characters, and something good to watch.
For a silent film, it was interesting to watch, and easy enough to follow. The intertitles, though long in nature, were done in an interesting to read font that fit with the character of the piece. The sets were really bizarre to look at as well (I believe this film was classified as German expressionism). It even had a decent twist at the end.
For some weak points, the characters were hardly delved into at all beyond their basic function in the story, and we weren't even told the name of the girl until near the end. Almost no relationships were established between the characters -- only a thin one between the main character and his best friend who was murdered -- so I believe that made the story a little thinner than it could have been.
For a film that was still falls under the experimental time of filmmaking, it managed to age very well over the years. Despite its weak points, we did get some change in the characters, and something good to watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
