The first movie in a trilogy produced (but not directed) by M Night Shyamalan from an original story by him (but not a script written by him).
The story: a group of strangers are trapped in an elevator and one of them might be the devil.
Was it good?
Almost. The movie actually has a lot of fun elements. It doesn't feel like SIXTH SENSE at all. In fact it feels more like a very contained, non-flashback, supernatural version of USUAL SUSPECTS. The story begins with the story of how the devil walks the earth to cause people to lose faith. He kills someone in front of a person who loves them so that person will lose faith and turn away from God. And these events begin with a suicide, which this movie also begins with. This also allows for detectives to come on scene so you are not actually inside the elevator the whole time. This inside/out helps make the movie move a lot and was a great choice. They also do some cool things building the story. They don't start with a lot of supernatural stuff. It starts normal -- a suicide, an elevator stopping -- and then they build into the supernatural stuff. There also is a nice element to the story within the story -- the idea of the devil walking the earth -- that gave the movie another layer that could have really worked for it.
However, the problem is that nothing quite connects in the movie. There that the devil kills a person in front of a loved one so that loved one will lose faith is interesting, and for a long time the movie seems to be building to that, but then it stops and becomes about the detective, whose wife and child were killed in a hit and run, and him finding forgiveness for his wife/son's killer. It's almost like the movie was driving to a dark ending (much like USUAL SUSPECTS where the devil disappears) and then suddenly wanted to be happy, or at least hopeful and so tacked on an ending that didn't really fit and hadn't be built to properly. Instead, they should have done what U-S did and drive to that last final moment where we see the completition of the idea.
There also the problem of the people in the elevator. None of them had a particlarly interesting story and their backstories come into play much too late. It feels like the writer had a lot of different elements and was struggling to juggle them all and in the end just didn't try. So the first quarter is the normal part. The second quarter is the what the hell is going on part. The third part is the devil part. And the fourth part it the detective part. It makes the movie feel jumbled and disoriented, and especially the switch from the question of the devil to the detective's forgiveness in the last act, makes the whole feel much less than the sum of the pieces.
Still, it had enough I'm not surprised that some people might like it, and I'll certainly watch the sequel. But it also doesn't work enough that I would recommend it.
*** AVOID ***
Saturday, December 25, 2010
INSANE (2009) (a review)
A Swedish horror movie/thriller from the director of EVIL ED.
The story: A woman checks into a hotel and is killed. Then her sister comes looking for her and now will be stalked by the same killer.
Was it good?
No. But it wasn't horrible either. It just wasn't good. The movie has a very PSYCHO feel, what with the weird guy running a hotel alone and the girl getting killed (although not in the shower) and then someone coming looking for the dead girl. It's hard to get more PSYCHO than that. This movie, however, is no PSYCHO. That movie had interesting characters -- the girl who steal money and goes on the run, the nice guy with the mother who turns out to have a strange and twisted psychological problem. This movie has none of that. Only the concept remains and everything interesting beneath it is gone. I don't even really know why the movie is called INSANE. Of course the killer is insane, but then aren't all of these serial killers insane? The movie doesn't play with sanity in any interesting way, and even with the two sisters being nearly identical there isn't anything playing with repetition or deja vu.
I guess the more impressive thing is that the movie isn't just garbage. It's watchable and has some interesting parts, but the lack of depth means everything interesting leads nowhere, building up to a climax that feels almost tacked on.
*** AVOID ***
Monday, December 20, 2010
EXAM (2009) (a review)
An interesting thriller/drama.
The story: six people are put into a room as the last stage of a competition for an ultimate job. They are given a piece of paper that they cannot mark and they cannot talk to the guards or address the cameras before time is up. There is one question and one answer. They need to figure out what the question is and give the answer to get the ultimate job.
Was it good?
A was good. Not great, though. The first half the mystery of what the heck is going on is pretty interesting. At first the people decide to work together. This feeling out process is probably the most interesting for me. There were also hints brought up here about an infection and the type of company they were trying to get a job with that added an interesting element. After that they begin trying different things, all of which seem strange and outlandish (smashing lights, setting off a water sprinkler). The logic that they were using certainly wasn't any sort of logic I was familiar with. And while there had been those earlier hints of the corporation this job was for, nothing really more came out of it. The second half gets more tense as the people turn on each other, but it felt less interesting and more a generic "Only one gets out alive" thriller.
Still, while it wasn't great and it faded in the second half, there was a lot of interesting stuff here, and it was very well acted for a small movie.
*** SLIGHT RECOMMEND ***
TITANIC II ( a review)
From Asylum, the company that did a straight to dvd version of Sherlock Holmes, War of the Worlds, and Princess of Mars.
The story: a new gigantic, unsinkable boat called Titanic 2 sets sail and has problems with an iceberg, getting hit once by the iceberg and then getting hit by a tidal wave that capsizes the boat and kills everyone in the life rafts. The two main characters are trapped in the sinking boat and have to be rescued by the girl's father.
Was it good?
No.
But like with all the Asylum titles it isn't really as horrible as it should. It's a bad b-movie. It's a shame because these titles could be made a little smarter and a little better and be actually good. For instance, there is no characterization here, no arc, no people that we care about. It would have taken no more money (production-wise) to change the characters so we care about them as this disaster is happening. And like I've said before -- stories are about fascination. So what here was supposed to be fascinating? It's not the global warming aspect of the iceberg -- that's given short shrift. It's not the giant disaster aspect -- they don't really go into any details about what is going on. It's all buzz words and lots of running around. So how hard would it be to find one thing that was especially fascinating and really take the time (writing wise) to bring that out? It could be about the billionaire and the folly of money, or about people vs nature or about self-sacrifice as people tried to save others. But here there's none of that. It's all just flat.
Still, for a bad b-movie it at least movies along. But if you're looking for a movie, you can do better.
*** AVOID ***
Sunday, December 19, 2010
DISAPPEARANCE OF ALICE CREED (a review)
A Brittish thriller starring Gemma Arterton (Prince of Persia, James Bond: Quantum of Solace, Clash of the Titans, Men in Black 3).
The story? A contained thriller about two guys who kidnap a young woman and hold her hostage, but things become more complicated when one of the kidnappers knows the girls and plans to backstab his partner...or does he?
Was it good?
No.
This is one of those contained thrillers with plot twists that aren't really that interesting and then a lot of running around when everything starts to fall apart. The biggest problem is that I just didn't like any of the characters and didn't really care if they succeeded or failed. Unlike RESERVOIR DOGS or SHALLOW GRAVE, there was just nothing interesting going on. And while those movies rely on people in difficult circumstances becoming mean and nasty in scary ways, this movie is more about how all these guys are really pussies.
Here's a shocking idea -- if you are making a thriller, then make at least one character be an evil bastard willing to do nasty things. Otherwise your thriller will be as lame as this one.
*** AVOID ***
DESPICABLE ME (a review)
An animated superhero movie about a villain and some kids. Stars Steve Carrell as the kind-of super villain.
The story: a super villain is getting shown up by a better super villain who has just stolen an Egyptian pyramid. Worse, the bank now nolonger believes in the villain and has pulled their funding for his latest scheme -- a plot to steal the moon. Now he has to use three innocent girls to try to steal a shrink ray from his villian-nemesis to pull off his plan to steal the moon, but of course being with these girls will change his villain ways.
Was it good?
Yeah, it was good. Not amazing, but it was solid. Carrell was great for the vioce work and it had a nice twist on the super-hero/super-villain roles. Unfortunately, it becomes a little too obvious and pits villian against villain in a very light way -- these guys aren't even really villainous enough to be on CHUCK much less mess with Dr Doom or any real big bads. All this makes the movie drag as the movie moves through the second half with no real stakes -- we don't want the guy to steal the moon (and don't think he'll really do it in a significant way) and if he fails, well so what?
For young kids that won't be a problem as the movie moves along, but for older kids and adults will amuse but won't be at the same level as the best animated films.
*** RECOMMEND (especialyl for young kids) ***
Still, there's a lot to
Friday, December 10, 2010
UNITED STATES OF TARA - SEASON ONE (a review)
UNITED STATES OF TARA - SEASON ONE (a review)
A tv show from Diablo Cody, the stripper turned writer who won an Oscar from Juno. The story is about a wife with multiple personality disorder. Stars Toni Collette, John Corbett, Brie Lawson.
The story: (since this is a series, there isn't a specific storyline but here's the jist...) A housewife with multiple personality disorder tries to go off her meds to learn to deal with her disorder and get to the cause of it, struggles with her family -- her incredibly understanding husband, her annoying sister, her slut daughter and her gay son -- as they struggle with not only the chaos of a mom who is constantly changing, but also with their lives -- the daughter has an abusive boyfriend and then gets a job where the manager tries to sleep with her and the son has a crush on a Christian who may or may not be gay.
Was it good?
It was okay. It's never great. There are times it tries to be shocking or daring, but those are all kind of awkward. The strange thing that makes it watchable is the way that amid all the chaos of what's going on the family still comes off as fairly normal. While most shows with families are completely unrealistic -- and the more normal the family the more unrealistic the show feels (*cough* Cosby Show *cough*), this show with it's completely out-there premise actually helps make the characters and family feel normal.
This normalicy makes the show very watchable. If you are doing something and it's in the background, it's easy and enjoyable to follow. Still, as a show there never is anything compelling enough to allow me to recommend it. It's frustrating because this seems to be the modus operandi with a lot of the cable shows nowadays -- they are interesting but never that compelling.
So why is this mediocre-good while SEX AND THE CITY was so compelling, or SPARTACUS or BURN NOTICE? Well, the problem comes from two questions every writer should think about -- what is it about and how far do you push it?
What it this show about? The multiple personality thing is okay, but for non-multis what does it mean? In other words, what are we, the audience, supposed to take from it? The thing I get out of it is that even with all the choas they are normal...which is fine, but it's not much of a statement. In fact, it's a total non-statement because it's about them. Good statements (in fiction) are statements that affect the viewer. They are statements that the audiences take with them into their own lives. This doesn't have that sort of statement. You'd think they would use the multi as a metaphore for the ways a woman gets pulled in every direction, the way every woman needs to be many different people to be a woman and a mom...but no. It's used mainly just to make her life more chaotic. So what it is about? A normal family. And that's about it.
How far do you push it? This isn't just about being outrageous. This is about knowing whta the series is about and pushing and pushing the story to get deeper to the heart of what it is that you are exploring. Except here the story is just that they are normal. It's hard to push that. You can surround them with more chaos, but tat just feels like more and more stuff. So things like the sister having had a bad boob job...meh. So while the series is enjoyable it never gets to greatness because there just never seems to be anything at the heart of it.
So, no I can't recommend it. But I understand why others would find it enjoyable.
*** NOT RECOMMENDED ****
LOVE RANCH (a review)
A drama-ish movie starring Joe Pesci and Helen Mirren. The movie centers on a brothel, but it isn't sexy. And while it's kind of a comedy it isn't actually funny. Yep, it's an indy movie.
The story: a married couple runs a legal brothel in Nevada, but the husband wants to be more important so he sponsers a boxer thinking the boxer will help him become a big shot, but the wife and the boxer begin an affair and the boxer wants to get out of boxing and the wife is dying and runs away with the boxer, but the husband wants her back and...it goes on and on.
Was it good?
No. The married couple running a brother was okay, and the husband wanting to sponser the boxer was kind of interesting, but then the wife dying of cancer was weird and then her and the boxer running off and everything...it was like the movie started off on solid ground and then kept driving off a cliff again and again. I'm a fan of Mirren, but not for this movie.
*** AVOID ***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)