Showing posts with label RECOMMEND. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RECOMMEND. Show all posts

Sunday, September 15, 2013

A twisted revisionist update to the classic fairy tale.  Stars (The Avengers, Bourne Ultimatum), , and .  Written and directed by .

The story:  Hansel and Gretel, after escaping from a witch when they were children, have grown up to become kick a** witch hunteres!  They come to a town where children have gone missing and learn a powerful witch is taking them for a ritual that will make her immune to fire.  Hansel and Gretel try to save the children and defeat the witch, while learning things about their past.

Was it good?

Yes!  Which surprised me.  It is such a silly, goofy idea, but here's the thing -- the filmmaker seemed to understand that and embraced it.  Instead of doing something grounded and dark, he made something vibrant and fun.  Hansel and Gretel aren't just witch hunters, they are witch hunters with a bunch of cool a** steam-punk inspired weapons.  The plot, while not inspired, does a good enough job to keep things interesting.  This isn't a deep, brain teaser of a movie -- it's popcorn for action/horror buffs.  My biggest complaint is that the movies seems divided whether it wants to be rated R or PG-13 (it's rated R).  Some times it would embrace the R-rated sexy/violence and other times it seemed to pull back from it.  Hopefully in the sequel (it was a big hit so I assume there will be one) they will embrace the R-nature and really give us a sexy, crazy action movie for adults who like to be giddy kids!

*** RECOMMEND ****

Sunday, August 25, 2013

 
A British horror movie.  The directorial debut of Paul Hyett, who mainly had worked in the make-up/fx department.  Stars Rosie Day, Kevin Howarth, and Sean Pertwee.

The story: Set in the Balkans,  it follows a young girl whose mother has been killed by soldiers and if forced to work in a prostitution house for soldiers.  The soldiers like to brutalize the girls, so her job is to keep them drugged up and to clean them up after the men beat them.  However, after befriending one girl who is savagely attacked, she attacks her attacker, setting the soldiers after her.

Was it good?

Half of it was good.  First, let me say it is a powerful concept for a movie.  This isn't your typical kids-in-the-woods stuff.  Seeing this prostitution house (based on a true story) makes for a powerful (disturbing) experience.  In addition to the drama of this girl working in the house is the story that the operator of the house is in love with her, setting up another powerful dynamic.  And for the first half of the movie, it is a powerful movie experience.  The acting is also excellent.  The whole cast is good and Rosie Day especially was fantastic.  The set design and the directing (for the most part) were very good too.  Part of what makes the first half work so well is the mood and atmosphere they have build for the place and the way the director follows the main character as she goes about her duties tending to the girls and slipping in and out of the vents as her only way of having any sense of freedom and control.  However, after she attacks the first soldier and the soldiers go after her, the movie quickly slips away.  The story devolves into little more than chase after chase.  Instead of going for emotional depth, the script goes for action.  Even worse, by the end of act two they have her leave the house.  What was a tense, contained thriller for the first 2/3rds, now becomes little more than a generic chase movie.  What hurts the movie even more is that the chase elements as usually pretty stupid.  For a thriller to work, you want the characters (hero and villains) to be smart, to think ahead and plan.  Here the villains just chase her, pretty much one by one, and even when they grab her or could shoot her they don't (or they miss).   

However, while the movie definitely doesn't live up to the potential of its concept or it's cast, there is still a lot here worth recommending.  It's not a fun horror movie, and not an easy movie to watch, but for people looking for a powerful movie experience and able to deal with the violence/sexual brutality, the movie has more impact than 99% of what is out there.  Hopefully the director will learn from this and next tiem get a better script.

*** RECOMMEND ***

Monday, December 12, 2011

REAL STEEL (2011) (a review) ** RECOMMEND ***





Yes, I am recommending this movie and yes I am as surprised as anyone. However, if you can get past the silly concept and put your cynicism on hold, the first 3/4 of this movie are as good of a feel good film as anything I've seen in a while. It's a blatant Rocky with robots, and for the most part it works. There are just a couple moments in the final 1/4 that don't ring true that stall this from being just a great, great film. Considering how dumb I thought the trailer was, I can't believe how much I liked it. I liked it a lot.


The story: in the future, boxing match will be held with robots instead of people. Charlie (Hugh Jackman) was a boxer and now prowls the underground boxing circuit with his robot trying to make money and win. Except he keeps losing and ends up owing people a lot of money. Then he gets word an ex-girlfriend has died and Charlie now has custody of his son, whom he has never seen. However, the woman's sister wants custody of the boy instead so Charlie works out a deal with her husband -- $100,000 and he'll give up custody of the boy after looking after him for the summer. After his next robot gets killed in a match, Charlie goes looking in a junkyard and the boy finds an old model sparring robot. charlie helps fix it up and together them go on the underground robot fight circuit, with the boy believing in this old robot and Charlie desperate for money to keep his creditors away, until they work their way up and get a shot at a real title.


Was it good?


Yeah. The concept is silly and if you are cynical parts of this will be ridiculously stupid, but if you can put it aside it is just a fun, fun film with a great underdog story. From Charlie losing his robots and deep in dept to the boy who has become a pawn and who just wants something to believe in. The fight scenes were a little disappointing and the last one didn't work for me at all (is rope-a-dope really a good strategy for robots?), but overall it was just a good feel-good movie with a lot of heart and enough humor to make it a solid film.


*** RECOMMEND ***

Sunday, December 4, 2011

Martha Marcy May Marlene (2011) (a review) ** RECOMMEND ***


The directorial debut by Sean Durkin that stars Elizabeth Olsen (younger sister of the Oslen twins).

The story: a girl (Olsen) goes to live with her sister after escaping from an abusive cult. However, just because she is out of the cult doesn't mean she can put it behind her and as she struggles to return to "normal" life she becomes increasingly paranoid that the cult is coming back for her.

Was it good?

Yes. Very good. Almost excellent, but a few things hurt the final film and prevented it
from being an alsolutely A+++ film. First the good. The story is interesting from the start as it begins with the girl having escaped and calling her sister, who hasn't heard from her in two years. Things are immediately tense and awkward and we can see the girl having trouble in this new setting (her sister's boyfriend's home). As she struggles to adjust we begin to flashback to her experiences in the cult, from her first entering to the escalating abuse and violent behavoir.

Where the movie falters is both the beginning and the ending. We never see Martha's life before that made her join the cult and while much of it is implied by her time at her sister's house. While this is okay for most of the film, prevents the main character from having a strong arc and stops the second half of the film, as she struggles with her nightmares, to have quite the impact it should have. And the ending...well, it just didn't work for me. The problem is you spend all this time watching to see if she is going to escape from the psychological damage of the cult and it just doesn't give you that final answer. Now this isn't bad if you are doing a "Lady and the Tiger" story where there is a deeper question, but because there really isn't anything else here so the ending for me felt more like a cop out.

Still, overall a great film. If you are looking for a creepy psychological thriller that is more about character than cheap scares, this is a good one to check out.

*** RECOMMEND ***

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

BAD TEACHER (2011) (a review)





An R-rated comedy starring Cameron Diaz, and co-starring Justin Timberlake and Jason Segal.


The story: Elizabeth (Diaz) is a bad teach. Doesn't care about the students or teaching or any of it. She is on the verge of quitting her teaching job so she can get married to a super-rich guy and be set for life, but gets busted that she's just marrying for his money and the wedding gets called off. She decides she needs money for breast implants so she can attact a rich guy. Then she meets the new substitute teacher (Timberlake) who is both cute and rich. Now she will pursue him while trying to raise the money for implant, however he is kind of a dork and instead she will become attacted to another teacher (Segal) who is just as much of a jerk as she is.


Was it good?


Yeah. It was good. Lots of funny parts and it was nice to see a woman in an outrageous comedy for a change. But there were also a lot of things that didn't work which stopped it from being in the same class as movies like FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL.


First, the story doesn't really make sense. She wants implants to attact a guy, but the guy she is going after doesn't seem to care if she has them or not. So the implants are to attact a guy like that one who doesn't care if she has implants or not??? Doesn't make a lot of sense.


And of course the second half loses its funny as she begins to realize the rich guy isn't for her and the other guy is the one she likes. Yawn. One of the things about these irreverent characters is that they are fun when they are bad and once they stop they become boring. Luckily that when the movie ends, but it's more of a limp-to-the-finish ending than a great rousing finale.


The best parts are when Diaz gets to be bad. Let her rip on some kids, be crazy, be sexy, be bad. That's the fun parts and those (along with some good lines by the supporting cast) are what make the movie worth watching.


*** RECOMMEND ***

Sunday, June 12, 2011

SUPER 8 (2011) (a review)


SUPER 8 (2011) (a review)


The kids version of CLOVERFIELD. A modern ET. The sci-fi version of GOONIES. This movie is a bit of a hodgepodge of classic Spielberg from the 80's and modern day JJ Abrams. It's no surprise that is was directed by Abrams and executive produced by Spielberg.

The story: Four months after his mom is killed in an industrial accident, a boy and his friends witness a train crash while making a Super 8 movie. It wasn't an accident -- one of their teachers deliberately drove his car onto the tracks to make the train crash. The air force comes in to clean it up, but strange things begin to happen -- power outages and disappearing animals and electronics. The kids realize that something got off the train -- something alien -- and now they and the Air Force are trying to find it.

Was it good?

It was good. Almost very good. This is definitely a movie I'm recommending, but it was also frustrating because I kept feeling that it should have been better.

The story starts out both slow and strong, telling the story of these kids. A boy who lost his mother but now has a crush on the daughter of the man people blame for her death (he called in sick because he was drunk so she had to go into work the day she was killed). The group of kids who are outcasts who are making this movie. It's simple but has some wonderful stuff. In fact one of the best scenes happens before the first big thing -- the train accident.

Oddly enough, while the train crash is exciting, afterwards everything goes almost back to normal. For another 10 minutes there's no tension to the story. The biggest question is whether or not one boy will let his friend blow up his model train for the movie. During this there is some conflict with the Air Force who are hiding things and weird power outages and things going missing, but they always take a back seat to the kids.

The problem is that none of these elements really mesh and it feels like Abrams is trying to force all these elements together -- the big mystery...the Air Force hiding something from the father...the kids making a movie...the boy dealing with his mother's death -- but none of them really mesh.

Compare that to two of the movies SUPER 8 is going to be compared to:

CLOVERFIELD -- after a girl run out from a party, a guy finally admits that he loves her and goes to get her back, but a giant monster attacks New York City and now he has to run out to save her life. He will save her and they will be together, only to find out it is too late.

ET -- a boy who feels lonely and friendless finds and befriends an abandoned alien. The boy helps him get home, losing his new friend, but the adventure will bond him with other kids, thus gaining the friends he always wanted.

What you can see from both these movies is that they have a wonderful parallel -- the interior stories (man loves woman and wants to save a relationship, a lonely boy who wants a friend) and the exterior stories (man trying to save woman from monster, boy helping an alien get home).

This is what SUPER 8 lacks. I'm not really sure what the interior stories for these kids, and the main kid especially is supposed to be. It's kind of a love story, it's kind of him getting over his mother's death...these just isn't a strong central question for him. And similarly, I'm not sure what the big external question is either. Because Abrams tries to hide the monster for so long, it just doesn't seem important. Even when all the backstory is revealed, it just doesn't feel like it matters because we haven't been engaged with the monster at all. We don't know it. We don't like it. We don't fear it. It's just this weird thing in the background that suddenly everyone is acting like it is incredibly important.

Maybe this is Abram's downfall. The man is one of the best in the world at the use of mystery to engage the audience, but he it feels like he sacrifices story for mystery and it throws everything off. The big climatic third act feels more tacked on than a natural extention of the movie. And the lack of parallel between the inner emotions of the characters and their outer events surrounding them, make the ending feel less like a powerful moments, then just a rehash of a more (emotionally) successful Spielberg film.

Still, there are a lot of wonderful moments here. The kids themselves are fantastic and Abrams finds lots of small moments that are incribly satisfying. This is a movie where you definitely get your money's worth...but because the parts seem greater than the whole, you also might feel like the movie was disappointing compared to what it could have been.

Still, for all the good stuff in it I'm still going to give it a...

*** RECOMMEND ***

Friday, June 10, 2011

X-MEN: FIRST CLASS (2011) (a review)





This is the reboot of the X-Men franchise after two successful X-Men films by Bryan Singer, a less successful movie by Brett Ratner, and a semi-successful Wolverine movie. It features a young group of X-Men and an all new cast, but with cameos by the original Wolverine and Mystique. It stars James McAvoy, Michael Fastbender, January Jones, Kevin Bacon, Jennifer Lawrence and a bunch of others. Directed by Matthew Vaughn (who was going to direct X3 but left the project).


The story: A young Erik Lensherr (who will become Magneto) sees his mother is killed in a concentration camp as the camp leader, Sebastian Shaw tries to get him to exhibit his powers. Meanwhile, a young Charles Xavier and a young girl he takes in named Raven (later to become Mystique) are studying mutations. Xavier is brought into a government project about mutants and Erik comes to join him as they gather a team of mutants. Shaw is trying to escalate the tension between USA and USSR to invoke a new world war from which mutants will rise as the dominant species. Xavier and Erik and their young mutants go to stop them and prevent the war, even as humanity is turning on mutants and even as Xavier and Erik begin to turn on each other.


Was it good?


Kind of? I mean, in some ways it was campy fun, it some ways it was pretty cool, and in some ways it felt pretty dumb. The problem these origin stories have is that we know how they will all end up, so unless you have something really cool in there a lot of it feel kind of hokey -- like when Xavier gets shot and then can't feel his legs. It's a tough line to walk -- part of the fun is seeing how people get to where we know they will be, but since we already know it the twists and turns can feel like obligation than storytelling.


I also didn't really understand the whole evil mutant plot. I mean, a nuclear war? How is that good for mutants? A world without tv and pro sports -- that's what they want? None of it really made sense to me.


There was a lot of good stuff. One nice things about the X-Men movies is that it makes it easy to talk about being an outsider and wanting acceptance and what that means. It makes them instantly work on levels that many, many action/blockbuster type movie don't. Here, it was a lot of stuff we have already heard before, some of which worked and some didn't. The problem is that the movie just didn't feel well constructed around it's theme. And for a movie that was supposed to launch a new franchise it was weird that they essentially solved all the "how they got there" questions in the first movie.


Still, there was a lot to enjoy. It isn't the best X-Men movie, but it's worth a watch.


*** RECOMMEND ***

Saturday, June 4, 2011

THE HOST (2006) (a review)





This is a Korean film by visionary director Bong Joon-Ho. It is a monster movie, but a very different one. He certianly has his own unique vision. It was the talk of the 2006 Cannes and has been praised by Quintan Tartantino and made it onto many top ten lists. The version I saw was dubbed.


The story: Bad formaldehyde is illegally dunped into the Han River (South Korea). From this a strange mutant monster appears and begins a rampage. The youngest daughter of a family that runs a food stand is captured. However, the authorities become worried about the spread of a virus and isolate everyone who has come in contact with the monster, including her family. Now they have to break out and try to rescue her even as the authorities try to shut everything down to prevent the spread of the virus.


Was it good?


Yeah...but weird. This doesn't work like a normal monster movie even though it has a lot of elements you would expect -- like a monster, but also the child getting captured, the family trying to save her, the authorities getting in the way, etc. a lot of time is spent with the characters away from the monster. The authorities for the most part seem more concerned with the spread of the virus, which becomes a very large part of the movie as well. There definitely is a strong anti-authority vibe through the movie.


There is also a lot of humor in the film. Like during the first attack by the monster, a woman is trying to get inside a shelter but the people won't open the door. Then she dives out of the way and the monster smashes through the door and kills all the people inside. Nice!


The monster itself is interesting. It runs and swims, but also does acrobatics. They also don't try to hide the monster, letting it run around in full sunlight, unlike many monster movies that put everything in deep shadow. And while the SFX aren't amazing, they are good enough to be cool.


Ultimately, while it is hard to describe, it is certainly an interesting film. Much like LET THE RIGHT ONE IN, the brilliant Swedish vampire film that became a very mediocre American remake, there is just a certain vision to the film that sets it apart.


One thing -- I have read comments that people saw a strong anti-American sentiment in the film. It is an American responsible for the chemical being poured int he river, the American military take over the South Koreans and do some pretty rough stuff. However, I didn't feel like it was specifically an anti-American movie. I thought it was more anti-authority as all the authorities are pitted against the family and their quest to save their daughter. I think to label it as anti-American you would have to be pretty over-sensitive. It's a monster movie with acrobatic monsters. Lighten up.


Also: I have no idea what the title means. At first I thought it was about the virus they keep talking about, but that's not where the movie goes so I am clueless!


*** RECOMMEND ***

Monday, April 11, 2011

BLOODED (2011) (a review)


This is a Scottish thriller. Never heard of any of the actors before, or the director. It's pretty good though and worth checking out. It's available on demand and on dvd. The offical website is here.


The story: a group of friends go to a remote cabin in the Scottish highlands. This is after fox hunting has been banned in Britian, but fox hunting continued as the police chose make the law a low priority. One person in the group is very vocal, public pro-fox hunting. After shooting and gutting a deer, the next morning they wake up stripped to their underwear and left on the moors in the cold where they are hunted by pro-animal extremists who force them to read an anti-hunting statement. However, all does not go as planned...


Was it good?


Yes.


I had never heard of this or any of the people in it so I had no idea what to expect. The movie does a lot of things very well that make it a film worth watching, but makes a few bad choices that prevent it from becoming a real classic.


*** SPOILERS -- there's no way to talk about the film without having some spoilers, but they are more general spoilers and fairly mild ****


First the good. The story takes it's time. It let's us get to know the characters and the situation. It starts talking about the banning of fox hunting and how polarizing that was. Then it focuses on the people. Two couples are in relationships. In one a man is preparing to propose to a woman. The other is a relationship just getting started, with a man bringing his American girlfriend out to Scotland for the first time. There is also an element with two brothers where one brother left for a long time, basically abandoning the other brother. All of this is well done. The writer finds interesting spaces for these relationships with lots of questions and lots of tension. Throughout the movie, there are clips to interviews with the characters where they can fill in some backstory about the people and places. It let's them give a lot of information quickly, so you feel like you get to know all the people fast and keeps the story moving. There is also a scene where the American woman shoots a deer and they later gut it. It is very disturbing and a nice prelude to what will happen when these people themselves are hunted.


The parts where the people are hunted have lots of tension and moves along. First they wake up with no idea what has happened, then the shooting begins. For the most part, they stick to a POV style, so we are in the situation with the characters which is effective. However, it is also here that the problems begin to appear.


The first problem is that the short interview segments continue. Now in the beginning, they were a nice way to quickly add information. Here, they keep pulling us out of the action and continually remind us that these people don't die. For a movie centered around people being hunted and shot at, to know none of them die takes a lot of the tension out of this section of the film.


The second problem is with what I call "the plan." Now most thrillers have two different plans -- there is the plan the bad guys have and the plan the good guys have to foil them. It's part of the fun of watching these sorts of movies. However, here, because the people-hunting-people are completely unknown we never get much sense of what their plan is. On the flip side, the people-being-hunted don't really ever get a plan either. Now this might work if the movie really stay in the POV of the characters (or better yet, one character) so it was a true man-in-the-trenches sort of feel, but they don't do that and with the constant cutting to the external interviews, it really cuts out a lot of the tension and makes you feel in places like you are just watching people run almost randomly, which isn't very exciting.


The third problem is the twist. Or rather lack of one. Anyone who reads a logline for the movie (hunters stripped almost-naked and then hunted) can guess most of the movie and it plays out according to form. What it needed was one good twist around 1/2-way or 3/4's in to shake things up. It wouldn't have to be a plot twist -- it could be something more emotional or perosonal. There is a shift when the people-being-hunted find a gun, but even that is pretty expected in this sort of movie. It's why movies like this need to have another element, usually something personal. THE DESCENT has the reveal that the woman's husband was having an affair, which puts a startling twist on the emotions of the film, since the movie revolved around the closeness of these women and how they had been affected since her husband's death. They do have a powerful emotional moment in the last quarter of the film, which would have made a powerful ending, but then the movie drags on another five minutes with boring post-interviews, making you feel more like you get to the end, rather than having that last rush of excitement that great movies have.


Even with those flaws, it's a well made movie and a good watch for people who like realistic thrillers.


*** RECOMMEND ****

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

THE DOOR (2009) (a review)

A GREAT MOVIE!!! How is this not getting more attention? A Dutch/German film, a very cool little twisted thriller...one of the best movies twisted thrillers I've seen in a long time. With time time loop movies all the rage (ala SOURCE CODE with Jake Gyllenhaul which is coming out next year) this is a movie that does something a little different and does it in a very cool way

The story: DAVID is cheating on his wife, and while out getting some nookie his daughter falls into the pool and drowns. David is devestated. His wife leaves him. His life is in shambles. Then one night while wandering he finds a strange door. He walks through it and it is daylight. More thna that he has been transported to an alternate universe where it is five years earlier. Now he is able to save his daughter, but afterwards he is surprised by this world's version and David and he accidentally kills him. Now he has to cover up what he has done so he can stay in this world where his daughter is still alive and he is still with his wife. Except of course covering it up isn't easy, especially when his daughter is the one person to recognize that he is not in fact her actual father.

Was it good?

GREAT MOVIE! Not only is this a nice little twisted thriller, but this movie has what most thriller don't -- EMOTION. The scenes of the man losing his daughter are painful. Then when he is able to save her, and then that gets flipped around when he accidentally kills himself and then when his daughter knows he's not the real father and he has to explain what happened (without wanting to tell her the truth). AMAZING STUFF!

There are some other great twists that come about later. Not only does he have to cover up his crime and try to win over his daughter, but he has to break things off with his mistress without his wife realizing what is happening and then it turns out he isn't the only one able to use the door, which adds complication onto complication.

If I have any problems it's with the third act which gets a little too plot-y and goesa bit over the top and doesn't deliver the emotional punch that it should. Otherwise, this was a knick out film for me.

*** RECOMMEND (and then some!!!) ****

Saturday, November 6, 2010

BLACK DEATH (a review)



It's called a horror movie and sounds like a horror movie, but it's not a horror movie. This, in fact, is one of the most fascinating movies I've seen in a long time. It's dark and tense and is getting a RECOMMEND from me! Stars Sean Bean (Lord of the Rings) and is directed by Christopher Smith (Triangle).

The story: takes place during the black plague (1348). A young monk who is in love with a girl goes with a group of mercenaries to find a small village that has been untouched by the plague. The mercenary says it's to show that this pagan village isn't special so people won't turn away from God, but then he tells the young monk that really they are going to find a necromancer -- someone who can bring the dead back to life. At the village, the mercenaries are captured and now the villagers try to convince them to renounce their god and accept their pagan worship.

Was it good?


This movie absolutely fascinated me!

What the writer did so well is to put people on opposite sides. People talk about ideas, about beliefs, about God. And all the characters are complex and interesting. They all have faith, although in a different way. This is a much smarter, more intellectual film than the title or storyline might lead you to believe. Yes, it is dark and it is violent, but that is just the stakes these people are fighting for when they really believe their immortal souls, or the souls of others are on the line. One of the most fascinating twists is when the mercenaries are captures and now the pagan villagers begin torturing them to get them to convert. It's a fascinating reversal.

I loved that it was played realistically (although there is a twist near the end that made it more realistic but less enjoyable for me). I loved that the people weren't belief-cynics, people who think God and religion is garbage for stupid people, but that they were people who believed and cared although in different ways, and not always to the same God. And I loved that they god Sean Bean to play one of the leads. This is an actor's movie and he was fantastic!

If this battle of belief between people who believe but in different things interests you then this is a must see.

*** RECOMMEND ***

Thursday, October 28, 2010

DAMNED BY DAWN (a review)


It's been almost thirty years since Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell broke into the biz with a little self-made horror movie called EVIL DEAD. Since then, the little movie (and its two sequels) have become classics. However, with the possible exception of Peter Jackson's DEAD ALIVE no horror movie has been able to match E-D. For all the little horror movies, for all the movies about zombies and ghosts and demons, nothing has the sheer invention, the cleverness, the fun of Sam Raimi's first. DAMNED BY DAWN seems to take a lot of cues from E-D. Even the name harks back to E-D 2's catch phrase "Dead by Dawn." And for a while it seems like it might just live up to the classic. It doesn't, but for me it is the closest a movie has come in the last decade of capturing that EVIL DEAD magic.

The story: a young woman returns home on the eve of her grandmother's death. That night she and her family are awakened by a spectral figure's horrible shriek. She pushes the figure off out the window, where it falls and is impaled on the fence below, but the figure was actually a protector and by intervering it allows the dead to rise and attack the family and now they have to find a way to survive until dawn.

Was it good?

Somewhat. It was good, but it had a chance to be awesome and, unfortunately, the second half let's the promising first half down.

The beginning is classic Raimi-style with a slow build as the daughter returns home and sees her dying grandmother. There's some odd things, some tension in the family, but nothing too obvious. Like the first twenty minutes of EVIL DEAD, it's content to let us meet the people and build some tension. After the mother dies, we see the special figure. It isn't attacking anyone. It's just standing on a balcony screaming, but what a scream! A piecing wail that wakes everyone in the house and sends them into a panic. It's a great moment. It's just something you've never seen and watching while this family, who is still dealing with the grandmother's death, now have to deal with this...well, it's set pieces like that that sets this movie apart from all the others. Most movies never have that moment, that something strange and new that even an experienced horror audience hasn't seen before. The fact that it isn't an obvious threat to the family -- makes it more interesting. What is it? What's it doing? How do you stop it? Well, the daughter finds a way to stop it, but unfortunately she learns too late she wasn't supposed to stop it! Now all hell breaks lose as the dead rise and all sorts of supernatural entities begin to attack the family.

This is the stuff great horror movies are made of. Unfortunately, it's also here that this movie fails to live up to it's potential. Now I want to mention a few of the shortcomings and what he does wrong that Raimi did right in E-D 1, but by no means do I want people to think this isn't worth watching -- I am recommending it, but I also think it could have been much, much better.

The first problem is threat. After they mess with the banshee, there needs to be a moment where we feel the threat against these people. It needs to be unsettling and intense. Sure, the dead rise and there are weird ghost things, but that's too familiar. Compare that to E-D when the girl goes out of the house and she is attacked by the trees. And not just attacked, but raped! WTF!!! That was a moment that set E-D apart -- instead of just being ghosts or demons, they were trapped by the very woods themselves. The fact that the trees didn't just attack her, but also violated her showed it was a movie that was going to be extreme and these people were in real trouble. This wasn't a "play nice" sort of horror movie. This was a movie that would F%%% with you. Unfortunately, there's nothing to match that moment here. Yes, the family is attacked by a stead steam of unpleasant things, but there's nothing quite as shocking, nothing as startling, nothing as threatenting at that tree scene.

Second is story. E-D has a nice, simple story. The read from the Necromicon, the demons come at them, then he needs to destroy the book to send the demons back to hell. Here, it isn't clear what they need to do once all the baddies start coming at them. The end happens in this cave nowhere close to the house. It all just starts to feel random. So instead of a movie that builds and builds, it's a movie that builds and falls and has ups and downs. E-D escalates by having Campbell's friends get attacked and then turned into demons as well, so now he has to fight his friends to survive. There's nothing like that here. They deal with zombies, they deal with weird spirits, they deal with other CGI type stuff, but it all feels random.

The third problem is the director. While he does a decent job, he just doesn't have the visual style of a young Sam Raimi and it hurts the film, especially in the second half when things should be getting off the hook and be cool. It needs more visual zazz! That lack of invention hurts the movie a lot.

It's disappointing. I'm even willing to ignore the bad CGI and make-up if the story had been tighter and the director a little more daring.

Still, while it isn't good enough to go with EVIL DEAD, it does have a lot of good stuff. I only hope the director pushes the script and the camera move in his next effort.

**** RECOMMEND ***

Saturday, October 16, 2010

MONSTERS (a review)



This is the monster movie by Gareth Edwards that he shot for $15K that showed at Cannes. I believe it is available for Pay-per-View/Video on Demand and it's supposed to have a theatrical release as well. And it's worth watching!

The story: Six years after a NASA probe crashed in Mexico, Mexico and the US are struggling to contain strange, monsterous lifeforms that have begun to appear and have quarantined half of Mexico to try to contain them. Now a photo journalist is forced to escort his bosses daughter through the quarantine zone back to the US while avoiding these strange new monsters.

So how was it?

Awesome...and not so awesome.

This is a movie that definitely helps if you go in knowing it was shot for $15K. For that money, this thing is amazing. This is not a movie that looks cheap at all. The F/X and locations and monsters and cinematography are all fantastic. The actors, too are all solid. The visuals are constantly engaging and the mosters have a cool octopus/Lovecraftian feel to them different from anything I've really seen before. Unfortunately, where the movie is lacking is story.

In terms of story, this thing feels like CLOVERFIELD-lite. That's because while both movies feature big scary monsters, they really spend more time focused on the people than on the monsters. C- however, had a much stronger story for the characters -- a guy loves a girl, but things have gotten screwed up between them and right before he is going to rush out to tell her he loves her a Godzilla-like monster attacks the city, and now this guy has to rush threw a war zone-like Manhatten to try to save her before the army firebombs the entire city to destroy this monster.

Holy crap! Now that's a movie!

MONSTERS doesn't have a story anywhere close to that powerful. Here you have two people, a guy who is kind of a horn-dog and has a kid he doesn't see and a girl who is about to get married but doesn't really seem that into it. She is in Mexico near or in the infected zone (for some reason, i don't think they ever say), and now the guy has to get her to the US. Things go wrong, so instead of taking the ferry (safe) they have to venture through the infected zone. During this they seem to bond a bit, but there just isn't anything particularly powerful going on with them on an emotional level. He wants to take a great photo, but never really does anything about it and she doesn't seem that into her impending marriage, but again she isn't really against it either. I've heard a comparison to LOST IN TRANSLATION, where you have these two people who are lost in their own lives and lost in a strange city come together...except L-i-T really explored how isolated and alone those people felt and I just didn't get anywhere near that depth of feeling here.

It's a shame because this lack of character depth/emotion is the only thing keeping this movie from being a tour-de-force, just an out of the park home run. And, ironically considering how much is made for the cost of making the movie, that's a part that would have been free. It just meant coming up with a stronger, more emotion-packed story for the characters.

And it makes it interesting to compare this movie to PARANORMAL EXPERIENCE, another low budget, made out of HWood movie that became a sensation. The difference is that MONSTERS had to be made by someone with a strong background in visual F/X and that is the strength of the movie. P-E lacked that (on a technical side it could have been made by anyone), but it has a much stronger story in dealing with the characters and because of it, for me, it's a stronger film.


There are a lot of other things that didn't make sense to me, although honestly while I was watching the film it kept my interest enough that I didn't think about them.

The movie itself is an interesting contrast to PARANORMAL EXPERIENCE. That was a movie that anyone could make. There wasn't any special technical skill to the shots or F/X -- the story, concept and characters are what made it compelling. MONSTERS is visually fantastic and will definitely find a certain audience, but you'd need advanced skill behind the camera and with visual F/X to pull it off and ultimately the weakness of the story and character arc's make it hard to imagine it would find the mass appeal that either CLOVERFIELD or PARANORMAL EXPERIENCE did.


But my hat's off to the guy for getting the film made. And while for me it's not on the same level as C- or PE, it is definitely a movie worth watching.



The site Slashfilm also has a video on the making of the movie, which I haven't watched but will after I type this up. LINK

*** RECOMMEND ***