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 R Rated. Show all posts
Showing posts with label R Rated. Show all posts
Monday, June 10, 2019
Sunday, February 1, 2009
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
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.
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.
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...
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.
Fatal Attraction -- 1987 -- R
Classic love triangle flick that was nominated for best picture and has been spoofed over and over and over. A man (Michael Douglas) cheats on his wife for a weekend when she is out of town, and is then stalked by the woman he slept with (Glenn Close). Once you get past waiving your finger at the idiot for committing adultery to start with, his family becomes the victims of his wrongdoing, making the consequences of his actions the real plot of this story. After the affair, the movie kicks off and just moves non-stop to the end with several twists and turns along the way as Close's character keeps tightening the noose.
What makes the tale all the more enthralling is the realization that with everything that she is doing to him, he can't (won't) reveal what is really going on to his wife because if he does, he'll be forced to reveal his infidelity. Close's character knows this and continues her dirty game until he dies or gives her what she wants from him.
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 English Patient -- 1996 -- R
This won best picture in 1996 over Evita. Talk about a slow burning fuse. It took forever for anything interesting to happen in this film, despite all the war stuff, and people getting blown up occasionally. The beginning was intriguing enough: plane shot out of sky with two people in it; one survives all burned up. Sure, want to know who they are. The film moves through two different plots: one for the guy with the burned up face before his face got burned up in the past, and the other for the nurse who is caring for him in the present (1944). Anytime you feel like checking the runtime on a movie, there is a pacing issue in my opinion. However, this is also the type of film to ensure all loose ends are tied up and somehow it leaves you with a satisfied feeling when it's all over.
Another love triangle for the main storyline, it involves an illicit affair and how to (or not to) handle it. This time, both lovers are all over each other at the expense of the husband. Personally, this is never a plot I can get behind just because I don't think it's right, no matter how much you push the "meant for each other" envelope. I believe the decisions and promises you've made outweigh any "meant for each other" feelings you think you feel in the future. If you stick to your decisions and don't let lust carry you away, you will find you've been with who you were meant for already. So, bottom line: slow film, big drama, good drama, nice conflict, good story, but just not fond of "adultery is right" films.
Another love triangle for the main storyline, it involves an illicit affair and how to (or not to) handle it. This time, both lovers are all over each other at the expense of the husband. Personally, this is never a plot I can get behind just because I don't think it's right, no matter how much you push the "meant for each other" envelope. I believe the decisions and promises you've made outweigh any "meant for each other" feelings you think you feel in the future. If you stick to your decisions and don't let lust carry you away, you will find you've been with who you were meant for already. So, bottom line: slow film, big drama, good drama, nice conflict, good story, but just not fond of "adultery is right" films.
American Beauty -- 1999 -- R
This film won 5 Oscars in 1999 including best picture. It's a bizarre dramatic tale about what is supposed to be typical suburbia. If this is typical suburbia, then I want to move to Canada. Basically, you follow two people in their screwed up marriage and their screwed up daughter (who is probably more normal than the parents are). Dad is quite the pervert going for his daughter's little friend (and nearly having sex with her), and mom is quite the adulteress. Now, I understand their marriage is down the tubes, but they are still married. The daughter follows the parents' leads and hooks up with the weird camera-toting drug dealer next door flashing him and then sleeping with him.
Despite the weirdness of the storyline, the writing was actually good, the characters were well rounded, and the actions the characters took (no matter how strange they are in my world) made sense within their characters. It progressed nicely throughout with a good pace, and overall, it's easy to see why this was a good movie. The plot, though, is just messed up...
Despite the weirdness of the storyline, the writing was actually good, the characters were well rounded, and the actions the characters took (no matter how strange they are in my world) made sense within their characters. It progressed nicely throughout with a good pace, and overall, it's easy to see why this was a good movie. The plot, though, is just messed up...
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.
Blade Runner -- 1982 -- R
A futuristic sci-fi offering with Harrison Ford as a Blade Runner named Deckard, a person who tracks down a certain model of android and "retires" them. The movie follows 4 of these androids and his quest to take them down.
The movie was very cerebral in nature with lots of exposition about genetics and making these androids who are lifelike. There were some action scenes, but not very many of them. The characters tended to be very flat in nature, which would have been more expected had this film delivered more of a thrill ride. Ford's character, though ostesibly the main character, didn't get rounded out very well at all. We learned nothing of his past at all to give him any kind of depth, so his actions appeared to be primarily plot driven.
The final scene climbing around the outside of the building should have had more punch to it, but it felt very anti-climactic since I was uncertain as to why he would have chosen outside as a viable option since the stairs would have been far more logical.
The androids' fear of dying was put forth fairly well, but it didn't really create much tension as it was probably intended to. To finalize the whole thing, the movie ended somewhat ambiguously, whch considering how ambiguous the movie was throughout, was entirely appropriate.
The verdict? It was ok and kind of weird, but lacked a little something to make it good.
The movie was very cerebral in nature with lots of exposition about genetics and making these androids who are lifelike. There were some action scenes, but not very many of them. The characters tended to be very flat in nature, which would have been more expected had this film delivered more of a thrill ride. Ford's character, though ostesibly the main character, didn't get rounded out very well at all. We learned nothing of his past at all to give him any kind of depth, so his actions appeared to be primarily plot driven.
The final scene climbing around the outside of the building should have had more punch to it, but it felt very anti-climactic since I was uncertain as to why he would have chosen outside as a viable option since the stairs would have been far more logical.
The androids' fear of dying was put forth fairly well, but it didn't really create much tension as it was probably intended to. To finalize the whole thing, the movie ended somewhat ambiguously, whch considering how ambiguous the movie was throughout, was entirely appropriate.
The verdict? It was ok and kind of weird, but lacked a little something to make it good.
Das Experiment -- 2001 -- R
See? Now this is the reality show I wanna see. Some scientists concoct an experiment in which they take some volunteers and assign some to be guards and some to be prisoners. The idea is to watch how the people react to each other in their assigned roles over a period of two weeks. The experiement ends after 6 days.
Talk about brutal, once we hit the prison after the 20 minute act one, it just becomes more and more interesting from a psychological standpoint. At first, no one takes any of it seriously, but when the guards step into their roles and begin taking action and humiliating the prisoners, psychological hell breaks loose.
This one has a remarkable amount of characterization for the main characters, and while there are no major revelations in watching it, it is a fascinating bit of study to behold. The movie is supposed to be based on the true story of a similar experiment, many of the scenes happening exactly as they were portrayed on screen.
The thriller-esque plot keeps its pace up very, very well as the guards' desire to torture the prisoners increases and the prisoners slowly de-humanize. If you can handle German with English subtitles, it is a very interesting movie to watch.
Talk about brutal, once we hit the prison after the 20 minute act one, it just becomes more and more interesting from a psychological standpoint. At first, no one takes any of it seriously, but when the guards step into their roles and begin taking action and humiliating the prisoners, psychological hell breaks loose.
This one has a remarkable amount of characterization for the main characters, and while there are no major revelations in watching it, it is a fascinating bit of study to behold. The movie is supposed to be based on the true story of a similar experiment, many of the scenes happening exactly as they were portrayed on screen.
The thriller-esque plot keeps its pace up very, very well as the guards' desire to torture the prisoners increases and the prisoners slowly de-humanize. If you can handle German with English subtitles, it is a very interesting movie to watch.
Alexander -- 2004 -- R
This extensive film covers essentially the rise and fall of Alexander the Great in a style that intercuts elements of a documentary with standard drama of dueling storylines. One storyline begins in Alexander's youth and follows him until he becomes king. The other starts at his first battle as king and follows him to his death.
With only a couple of minor hiccups at the beginning of the film, mostly due to the tri-fold skippage of the style from documentary told by one of Alexander's generals to the two other storylines, the film flows pretty well after the first half hour is over. I watched the director's cut which boasts a run time of nearly three hours. It comes top about 2 hours and 38 minutes without the credits.
Though it ran long, the film occasionally tried to do too much. It had multiple relationships for Alexander to go through including those with his mother, father, wife, male lover, generals, his army, and his people along with an ongoing inner conflict with himself. Tackling all of these relationships along with delivering a solid war movie caused the relationships to founder here and there as the movie progressed, which some taking off very well and then falling away as the movie went on.
What happened over and over again when a new relationship was introduced is a quick rundown of how the relationship works and some conflict inherent between that relationship and the rest of Alexander's life. Beyond this, the matter is dropped until needed and then there is relatively little development, just a little plot that uses what was established. In fact, a lot of the development is attempted through the documentary portions rather than viewing the character interaction. In my opinion, this hurts much of the character progression, but it does keep the film moving.
Overall, if you are into Greek history or historical or war dramas, it works well from the angle, but as a straight drama, I think it falls a little flat.
With only a couple of minor hiccups at the beginning of the film, mostly due to the tri-fold skippage of the style from documentary told by one of Alexander's generals to the two other storylines, the film flows pretty well after the first half hour is over. I watched the director's cut which boasts a run time of nearly three hours. It comes top about 2 hours and 38 minutes without the credits.
Though it ran long, the film occasionally tried to do too much. It had multiple relationships for Alexander to go through including those with his mother, father, wife, male lover, generals, his army, and his people along with an ongoing inner conflict with himself. Tackling all of these relationships along with delivering a solid war movie caused the relationships to founder here and there as the movie progressed, which some taking off very well and then falling away as the movie went on.
What happened over and over again when a new relationship was introduced is a quick rundown of how the relationship works and some conflict inherent between that relationship and the rest of Alexander's life. Beyond this, the matter is dropped until needed and then there is relatively little development, just a little plot that uses what was established. In fact, a lot of the development is attempted through the documentary portions rather than viewing the character interaction. In my opinion, this hurts much of the character progression, but it does keep the film moving.
Overall, if you are into Greek history or historical or war dramas, it works well from the angle, but as a straight drama, I think it falls a little flat.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind -- 2004 -- R
Wow. This film exceeded my expectations. We started with a girl meets boy find of story and flow into this shocker of our hero getting hooked up to electrodes and a computer system. He is working to erase the memory of his girlfriend (who met in the first minutes of the film) because she erased the memory of him first. As if that wasn't weird enough, the story of their first meeting doesn't match what we just watched.
Since most of the story happens in the mind of the boy, it is often strange to watch as people disappear or change or on other occasions, he walks from one location into another completely different one without even batting an eye. Normal here is turned upside down, but it makes the most wonderful sense.
The theme of this film is that no matter how much you try to forget, history will always repeat itself. Jim Carrey plays Joel Banis, and he continues to prove that he can act beyond the zaniness he is known for. This is a serious role, and he carries the film admirably with Kate Winslet as his whimsical, spontaneous girlfriend.
If you like romantic comedies, this is for you. If you like cerebral psychological dramas, this is for you. If you want to see a film that is not just a waste of 2 hours, then this is for you.
Since most of the story happens in the mind of the boy, it is often strange to watch as people disappear or change or on other occasions, he walks from one location into another completely different one without even batting an eye. Normal here is turned upside down, but it makes the most wonderful sense.
The theme of this film is that no matter how much you try to forget, history will always repeat itself. Jim Carrey plays Joel Banis, and he continues to prove that he can act beyond the zaniness he is known for. This is a serious role, and he carries the film admirably with Kate Winslet as his whimsical, spontaneous girlfriend.
If you like romantic comedies, this is for you. If you like cerebral psychological dramas, this is for you. If you want to see a film that is not just a waste of 2 hours, then this is for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
