Worms bore into brains
Folks change into Zombies/nests
A gooey delight
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Point-by-Point: Near Dark 6/10
A young cowboy-type immediately falls for a girl he sees at the local drug store. Turns out she's a vampire, and quickly makes him one. He's forced to join her gang and must either adapt to the new lifestyle or die. Well, die again.
The Good: The movie has lots of style and an interesting cast of characters. The story is interesting if only because it addresses vapirism as a disease - you're still you, you're just superstrong, can't die, are allergic to sunlight and need blood to live. Plus, I always like Lance Henrikson, who plays the head of the vampire clan.
The Bad: There are a few ridiculous events that just make you wish the writer wasn't quite so lazy. The acting is a bit over-the-top, but it's a vampire movie, so it's to be expected.
The Ugly: The vampires have a tendency to catch fire while outside in the sun. But it's a slow burn, so think charcol more than POOF.
Points Pondered
The Good: The movie has lots of style and an interesting cast of characters. The story is interesting if only because it addresses vapirism as a disease - you're still you, you're just superstrong, can't die, are allergic to sunlight and need blood to live. Plus, I always like Lance Henrikson, who plays the head of the vampire clan.
The Bad: There are a few ridiculous events that just make you wish the writer wasn't quite so lazy. The acting is a bit over-the-top, but it's a vampire movie, so it's to be expected.
The Ugly: The vampires have a tendency to catch fire while outside in the sun. But it's a slow burn, so think charcol more than POOF.
Points Pondered
- The vampire life is a bit more realistically portrayed than the uber-romantacised stuff of Anne Rice. Really, these are killers who are constantly on the lam. They must murder to eat, and convince themselves they're not human to do so.
- I'm not sure I buy blood transfusion as a cure to being a vampire.
- The clan gets into a shoot out with perhaps the most inept police department ever. If you see a bad guy making a run for a car, you should probably disable the vehicle.
- Apparently vampires prefer shaved victims. Seems fair.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Point by Point: The Proposition 7/10
A bandit (Guy Pearce) and his little brother are in jail, but the chief of police makes him a deal: He'll let them go free if he goes into the outback and kills his older brother, who's basically a sadistic yet smart jerk. He accepts, because otherwise this would be a short film.
The Good: The setting is simultaneously harsh and beautiful, very much by design. Glorious shots of the Australian wilderness show just how barren it can be. The acting is top-notch, although it takes a few minutes to get an ear for everyone's accents.
The Bad: There are a fair amount of "this is important" cinematography, which can be a little overbearing. The meandering pace accented with brutal violence may definitely throw some people.
The Ugly: It's never fun to watch someone lashed, but the winner here is the townfolk - they got a lot of butt-ugly people to stand around and look cross.
Points Pondered
The Good: The setting is simultaneously harsh and beautiful, very much by design. Glorious shots of the Australian wilderness show just how barren it can be. The acting is top-notch, although it takes a few minutes to get an ear for everyone's accents.
The Bad: There are a fair amount of "this is important" cinematography, which can be a little overbearing. The meandering pace accented with brutal violence may definitely throw some people.
The Ugly: It's never fun to watch someone lashed, but the winner here is the townfolk - they got a lot of butt-ugly people to stand around and look cross.
Points Pondered
- If you don't like flies, you should probably avoid Australia.
- Ray Whinstone does not quite look as fit as he did in Beowulf. I think he probably got some CG help with his abs. Just maybe.
- I bet that if you recite a line from a poem after being shot, and the guy that shot you enthusiastically continues the quote, it's of little solace.
- Are you still allowed to call it a Western if it takes place in Australia? Does it get a funny name, like Kangaroo Western?
Monday, July 14, 2008
Point by Point: National Treasure: Book of Secrets 4/10
Basically the plot is the exact same as the first movie, only this time treasure hunter Nicolas Cage is searching for the lost city of gold, the location of which is hidden in the Presidential Book of Secrets. If you haven't seen the first one, think Da Vinci Code. If you've missed all 3, you are a lucky person indeed.
The Good: As with the first movie, the sole fun comes from the historically based treasure hunt. Sure, it's absolutely improbable and does a number on the facts, but it's a halfway entertaining idea. And Justin Bartha as Cage's cohort is again the only worthwhile character, adding some actual funny moments to an otherwise ponderous movie.
The Bad: Trying to follow the leaps of logic required to solve the "clues" given will just lead to headaches. And even if you leave your brain in the other room, the non-villian villain, the boring action and the worst performance by a multi-Oscar winning cast since Virtuosity means this is one to avoid.
The Ugly: Nic Cage's haircut. There is no reason he has to look so stupid.
Points Pondered
The Good: As with the first movie, the sole fun comes from the historically based treasure hunt. Sure, it's absolutely improbable and does a number on the facts, but it's a halfway entertaining idea. And Justin Bartha as Cage's cohort is again the only worthwhile character, adding some actual funny moments to an otherwise ponderous movie.
The Bad: Trying to follow the leaps of logic required to solve the "clues" given will just lead to headaches. And even if you leave your brain in the other room, the non-villian villain, the boring action and the worst performance by a multi-Oscar winning cast since Virtuosity means this is one to avoid.
The Ugly: Nic Cage's haircut. There is no reason he has to look so stupid.
Points Pondered
- If there really was a President's Book of Secrets, I'd run for the office on the platform of letting everyone know all the cool stuff about Area 51, the JFK assassination, etc. I would win in a landslide. And then I would mysteriously and tragically accidentally strangle myself while tying my shoe.
- It's hard to accuse an Oscar winner of slumming when he was once in Anaconda. Sorry Jon Voight. Oh, and your daughter is really hot.
- Ed Harris was an awesome not-quite-a-villain bad guy in The Rock. Here, he just sucks.
Point-by-Point: Get Smart 7/10
A terrorist smuggles a suitcase-sized nuclear weapon into LA in order to blow up the President as well as a large chunk of downtown. Hilarity ensues! Actually it does, since the whole plot is being stopped by Maxwell Smart, the bumbling CONTROL agent from the classic TV show.
The Good: This movie is thoroughly enjoyable. Looking back, I can't really point to anything that was particularly "good," but everything just seemed to work. It could be that I'm biased, since I tend to Like Steve Carell, Alan Arkin and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson in anything they do, but there were a lot of scenes and lines that had me laughing hard. There were also some appropriately ridiculous action sequences, so a little something for everyone.
The Bad: The plot and romantic subplot are about as generic as you get, and some of the references to the old show were a bit forced. Plus, the producers completely missed the chance to have Barats and Bereta in their movie, as they tried out for the lab-tech friends.
The Ugly: Well there's an obvious answer, but he's 7'2", 400 lbs and could end me without breaking a sweat.
Points Pondered
The Good: This movie is thoroughly enjoyable. Looking back, I can't really point to anything that was particularly "good," but everything just seemed to work. It could be that I'm biased, since I tend to Like Steve Carell, Alan Arkin and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson in anything they do, but there were a lot of scenes and lines that had me laughing hard. There were also some appropriately ridiculous action sequences, so a little something for everyone.
The Bad: The plot and romantic subplot are about as generic as you get, and some of the references to the old show were a bit forced. Plus, the producers completely missed the chance to have Barats and Bereta in their movie, as they tried out for the lab-tech friends.
The Ugly: Well there's an obvious answer, but he's 7'2", 400 lbs and could end me without breaking a sweat.
Points Pondered
- Some may not like changing Maxwell Smart from utterly incompetent agent to an expert analyst who is completely unseasoned in the field, yet overly confident and rather unlucky. Really though, it works and it explains how he could actually keep his job.
- Steve Carell and the Rock would make a seriously cute couple.
- Patrick Warburton makes a cameo at the end. He has the greatest voice ever, and if you don't already love him, go watch the Emperor's New Groove and revel in the awesomeness that is Kronk.
- You gotta hope it's not that easy to get a nuclear bomb within 20 feet of the President. And if you are a villian who DOES manage it, you'd hopefully have a backup way of detonating it, in case your overly-elaborate first method failed.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Full Review: Kung Fu Panda, 7/10
The story of Kung Fu Panda is simple: a panda who loves kung fu but is, to put it nicely, not quite sporting the Bruce Lee physique is “accidentally” chosen to be a warrior by the local dojo in order to combat a psychopathic snow leopard. Training does not go as planned, Po is rejected by the other members of the team, he discovers his secret strength (predisposition to stress-bingeing! now harnessed for motivational use!), saves the day, gains the respect of his peers, everyone goes home happy.
It’s not a new story, but it doesn’t need to be. The small tweaks to the formula, the quality of the animation, and the enthusiasm demonstrated by all of the voice actors involved all make Kung Fu Panda worthwhile. It’s not the best thing that Disney has ever produced, but it is one of the more entertaining bits of their recent oeuvre. Classify this with The Emperor’s New Groove under “throwaway but damn funny”, I guess.
Generally, Disney has a template, and they don’t like deviate from it. It’s worked for donkey’s years and there’s no reason for them to change now. Right? Kung Fu Panda, by and large, plays into this formula -- stressing understanding, individuality, and the ability to succeed against all odds. Where it gets interesting is in where it deviates from the mold. Kids’ movies tend to have a strongly teamwork or cooperative focus, and what really struck me is how independence-focused this one was. Po, our plus-sized hero, does have allies and guidance but he confronts the big bad and triumphs all on his own. It is only after he rejects his position as a member of the team that he is able to succeed. This theme is never made explicit, but the implication is certainly there. There is a line between the importance of being true to yourself and an active dismissal of conformity, and Kung Fu Panda definitely walks it. Striking in a kids’ movie, and a Disney movie, no less.
Also striking: there is no romantic interest whatsoever. The only female character to be found is a bitch -- talented and emotionally-damaged, certainly, but still not romantically appealing. She lives up to her characterization as a tigress, and tigers and pandas don’t play nice. More importantly, she has no arc that would allow her to do so. Respect may be granted between characters, but Kung Fu Panda has no interest in creating frisson. This moral, in and of itself, is refreshing. You can succeed on your own, by the skin of your own teeth, because of your own desire for the end goal -- not because of the motivation offered by a kiss.
Jack Black does, well, Jack Black, but somehow it works. I am not a huge fan of his comedic style, but it’s a lot more palatable when in animated form. There are the requisite fat jokes, PG-rated implications of the obscene, and general JB schtick-- no worries, there. Pandas are also super-cute, which helps, and the rest of the characters are also appealing and work very well as straight-men to the “wackiness” demonstrated by our hero. Dustin Hoffman, in particular, is charmingly dour as the red panda who is the head of the dojo. James Hong, as Po’s oblivious noodle-selling duck of a father, also manages to add heart to what could have been a seriously pathetic role.
I do have a few things to say about the weird kind of fat-positive messages incorporated into this film, but I think that “weight issues” might be an essay unto itself. I realize that I’m probably a bit more sensitive to such things than the average bear, but there was something definitely strange (or at least unconventional) in Kung Fu Panda’s approach to the issue of weight. The one thing that was most off-putting, however, is the esteeming of what is, essentially, bingeing. It’s all for comedic effect, of course, and it is honed into a positive, but still, it’s really unappealing.
Also, in the tradition of Paul, my true ugly point: an ass-clench shot. I really did not need to see a wedgied panda-bum being clenched on a movie-theater sized screen.
It’s a throwaway effort by Disney, but what it lacks in resonance, Kung Fu Panda makes up for in enthusiasm and humor. There’s not a lot of sophisticated humor, but even adults can appreciate sweet and simple amusement, right?
7/10
It’s not a new story, but it doesn’t need to be. The small tweaks to the formula, the quality of the animation, and the enthusiasm demonstrated by all of the voice actors involved all make Kung Fu Panda worthwhile. It’s not the best thing that Disney has ever produced, but it is one of the more entertaining bits of their recent oeuvre. Classify this with The Emperor’s New Groove under “throwaway but damn funny”, I guess.
Generally, Disney has a template, and they don’t like deviate from it. It’s worked for donkey’s years and there’s no reason for them to change now. Right? Kung Fu Panda, by and large, plays into this formula -- stressing understanding, individuality, and the ability to succeed against all odds. Where it gets interesting is in where it deviates from the mold. Kids’ movies tend to have a strongly teamwork or cooperative focus, and what really struck me is how independence-focused this one was. Po, our plus-sized hero, does have allies and guidance but he confronts the big bad and triumphs all on his own. It is only after he rejects his position as a member of the team that he is able to succeed. This theme is never made explicit, but the implication is certainly there. There is a line between the importance of being true to yourself and an active dismissal of conformity, and Kung Fu Panda definitely walks it. Striking in a kids’ movie, and a Disney movie, no less.
Also striking: there is no romantic interest whatsoever. The only female character to be found is a bitch -- talented and emotionally-damaged, certainly, but still not romantically appealing. She lives up to her characterization as a tigress, and tigers and pandas don’t play nice. More importantly, she has no arc that would allow her to do so. Respect may be granted between characters, but Kung Fu Panda has no interest in creating frisson. This moral, in and of itself, is refreshing. You can succeed on your own, by the skin of your own teeth, because of your own desire for the end goal -- not because of the motivation offered by a kiss.
Jack Black does, well, Jack Black, but somehow it works. I am not a huge fan of his comedic style, but it’s a lot more palatable when in animated form. There are the requisite fat jokes, PG-rated implications of the obscene, and general JB schtick-- no worries, there. Pandas are also super-cute, which helps, and the rest of the characters are also appealing and work very well as straight-men to the “wackiness” demonstrated by our hero. Dustin Hoffman, in particular, is charmingly dour as the red panda who is the head of the dojo. James Hong, as Po’s oblivious noodle-selling duck of a father, also manages to add heart to what could have been a seriously pathetic role.
I do have a few things to say about the weird kind of fat-positive messages incorporated into this film, but I think that “weight issues” might be an essay unto itself. I realize that I’m probably a bit more sensitive to such things than the average bear, but there was something definitely strange (or at least unconventional) in Kung Fu Panda’s approach to the issue of weight. The one thing that was most off-putting, however, is the esteeming of what is, essentially, bingeing. It’s all for comedic effect, of course, and it is honed into a positive, but still, it’s really unappealing.
Also, in the tradition of Paul, my true ugly point: an ass-clench shot. I really did not need to see a wedgied panda-bum being clenched on a movie-theater sized screen.
It’s a throwaway effort by Disney, but what it lacks in resonance, Kung Fu Panda makes up for in enthusiasm and humor. There’s not a lot of sophisticated humor, but even adults can appreciate sweet and simple amusement, right?
7/10
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Point by Point: The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian 7/10
Our heroes return to Narnia and find it rather less magical. Probably due to all the Spanish dudes wandering around killing talking animals. Stupid spanish dudes. Well, save for our other hero, Prince Caspian. It's up to him to fight his own people and give Narnia back to the fantastical-yet-oppressed minority.
The Good: It's actually entertaining, which puts it head and shoulders above its predecessor, The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. The kids are also 10 times less annoying - I actually don't cringe every time they speak. But really, it's the special effects and battle sequences that make this movie - if not quite Lord of the Rings quality, they're exciting and a blast to watch.
The Bad: The story is a bit hacked together, and no one really steps up acting-wise (save for Peter Dinklage, doing a great job as the dwarf Trumpkin). And apparently Aslan, the protector of Narnia, is also the King of Passive Aggression - just because someone didn't come say hi to him when he momentarily appeared, he let's hundreds of people die. Jerk. Really, hard to be happy at the end of a movie when the deus ex machina could have easily happened an hour earlier.
The Ugly: The old Hawk-lady was seriously creepy.
Points Pondered
The Good: It's actually entertaining, which puts it head and shoulders above its predecessor, The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. The kids are also 10 times less annoying - I actually don't cringe every time they speak. But really, it's the special effects and battle sequences that make this movie - if not quite Lord of the Rings quality, they're exciting and a blast to watch.
The Bad: The story is a bit hacked together, and no one really steps up acting-wise (save for Peter Dinklage, doing a great job as the dwarf Trumpkin). And apparently Aslan, the protector of Narnia, is also the King of Passive Aggression - just because someone didn't come say hi to him when he momentarily appeared, he let's hundreds of people die. Jerk. Really, hard to be happy at the end of a movie when the deus ex machina could have easily happened an hour earlier.
The Ugly: The old Hawk-lady was seriously creepy.
Points Pondered
- Reason 3,234 You Shouldn't Trust Movies: Lions are NOT as cuddly as they appear. Sure, giving one a hug would be probably awesome for like 5 seconds, but then you are missing a large chunk of your torso.
- For supposedly having a lifetime to grow up before returning to their childhood bodies, the main quartet sure act like kids. And we won't even delve into the whole sex issue. Although I guess options are limited if they only other humans are related to you.
- It's amazing how the two actors' sword-fighting skills went completely downhill after they took of their helmets. I wonder why THAT happened.
- If you're an army and the literal field of battle turns against you, you'd probably best try again another day.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Haiku: Invasion of the Body Snatchers 7/10
PG-rated romp
Where your parents are pod folk.
Yay for nightmare fuel!
Where your parents are pod folk.
Yay for nightmare fuel!
Point by Point: Nightscare 2/10
Elizabeth Hurley is a psychiatrist (ha!) testing a dream-altering drug on her and the psychopath in the mental ward she works at. Instead of having the desired evil-quashing effect, the drug makes their dreams real. People die, and the original cop who caught our killer is forced to intervene, as he and Ms. Hurley muddle their way through a 2nd and 3rd act that make no sense.
The Good: Elizabeth Hurley almost gets naked. That is the sole good thing about this movie.
The Bad: This movie is a series of events happening with no explanation, followed by people talking about how weird what just happened was. Now, there are movies out there that effectively blend dreams with reality - this one does not. By the last half hour the director has completely given up on trying to show what's real and what's not, which makes the movie amazingly frustrating, confusing and boring. Plus the acting kinda sucks.
The Ugly: Our villain imagines a rotund and yet scantily clad nurse doing something to him with her closed hand. And then they reshow the last 2 seconds of the scene (him smiling grossly) after the credits, because I really needed to see him get off on it twice.
Points Pondered
The Good: Elizabeth Hurley almost gets naked. That is the sole good thing about this movie.
The Bad: This movie is a series of events happening with no explanation, followed by people talking about how weird what just happened was. Now, there are movies out there that effectively blend dreams with reality - this one does not. By the last half hour the director has completely given up on trying to show what's real and what's not, which makes the movie amazingly frustrating, confusing and boring. Plus the acting kinda sucks.
The Ugly: Our villain imagines a rotund and yet scantily clad nurse doing something to him with her closed hand. And then they reshow the last 2 seconds of the scene (him smiling grossly) after the credits, because I really needed to see him get off on it twice.
Points Pondered
- Elizabeth Hurley definitely got better as an actor. However she was always hot.
- When capturing the killer the first time around, the hero-cop was forced to shoot what I thought was his wife, but really looked and acted more like his mother (she comes back to life. Because the bad guy dreamed it. She makes tea.)
- If Elizabeth Hurley spent as much time shirtless as our main hero, this would have been a MUCH better movie.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Full Review: The Happening, 7/10
The Happening
OK -- I’ll admit it: I was scared to go to this movie. Not because it’s a horror movie; not because The Village kind of terrified me (shush. Cheap scare tactics for Amish children also work for me); I had read the reviews, read the epic panning that Shyamalan’s latest offering had received, and I didn’t want to be disappointed. I like his visual style, I like his stories, and I like his human touch. He writes interesting people, and even if the scare tactics are occasionally over-the-top, the jump-moments are not the point. His movies may be mixed-bag in terms of overall effectiveness, but they’re not stupid. It was striking that so many of the reviews for The Happening emphasized its dullness and its lack of intelligence.
It was heartening that this film managed to exceed all expectations. It’s not loud, it’s not slam-bang action, but it’s cerebral and more resonant than it has been given credit for. It has its flaws, and they’re not to be ignored, but the impact is not insignificant, either. Seriously -- it made me tense over the prospect of wind! and plants! By focusing on a trio of normal people, Shyamalan creates a microcosm that succeeds in keeping the focus intimate while still being easily extrapolated a larger societal scope.
The Happening includes a few of the most powerful, fascinating, scenes that I’ve seen lately -- they’re not easy to watch, but they work perfectly. As well, the camera work and sound effects manage to make plants embarrassingly sinister. Shyamalan, for as much as you may slam him for his cheap thrills, but he also has a true style when it comes to making the ordinary world uncanny. Running from a wind-front. Approaching a tree with pure terror. The idea is absurd, but with the correct suspension of disbelief, it works.
This is not to say that this movie is flawless. In fact, its flaws ultimately conspire to trivialize what could have been a very powerful piece of work. Yes, it has exceptionally strong moments, but the overall film could have been a lot stronger if not for a few elements. M. Night Shyamalan has a little problem: he knows that he’s a good storyteller, knows that he knows his stuff, but he can get a little cocky. There’s always that one extra thing that just has to be thrown into a set-up, and that’s the thing that breaks it.
However, at the same time that certain plotpoints are plagued with kitchen-sinkiness, dialogue suffers from the opposite problem. While I realize that half the point of this film is that no one knows what’s going on, would it be too much to ask for a wee bit of specificity? If all you can do is reference the film’s title and such phrases as “the event” or “it’s an act of nature”, there’s something wrong... or at least annoying.
Also, while I realize that half the strength of this movie is the acute portrayal of regular people in the face of calamity, after spending almost the entire movie making them at least respectable, why go and make them do something impossibly stupid seemingly without good reason? It’s an easy way to make the movie end quickly, but it’s still jarring and smacks of artistic laziness.
When The Happening is good (in its elegant portrayal of how people react to the incomprehensible) it’s very good. When it’s bad, it’s exceedingly frustrating. Shyamalan is an intelligent and very interesting film-creator, but he he can’t rest on his laurels too much -- that’s when things go wrong.
This movie is going to disappoint if you’re looking for action or cheap thrills; if you’re more in search of cerebral, meditative dread, The Happening is not a bad choice. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but it doesn’t deserve the derision with which it has been laden.
7/10
OK -- I’ll admit it: I was scared to go to this movie. Not because it’s a horror movie; not because The Village kind of terrified me (shush. Cheap scare tactics for Amish children also work for me); I had read the reviews, read the epic panning that Shyamalan’s latest offering had received, and I didn’t want to be disappointed. I like his visual style, I like his stories, and I like his human touch. He writes interesting people, and even if the scare tactics are occasionally over-the-top, the jump-moments are not the point. His movies may be mixed-bag in terms of overall effectiveness, but they’re not stupid. It was striking that so many of the reviews for The Happening emphasized its dullness and its lack of intelligence.
It was heartening that this film managed to exceed all expectations. It’s not loud, it’s not slam-bang action, but it’s cerebral and more resonant than it has been given credit for. It has its flaws, and they’re not to be ignored, but the impact is not insignificant, either. Seriously -- it made me tense over the prospect of wind! and plants! By focusing on a trio of normal people, Shyamalan creates a microcosm that succeeds in keeping the focus intimate while still being easily extrapolated a larger societal scope.
The Happening includes a few of the most powerful, fascinating, scenes that I’ve seen lately -- they’re not easy to watch, but they work perfectly. As well, the camera work and sound effects manage to make plants embarrassingly sinister. Shyamalan, for as much as you may slam him for his cheap thrills, but he also has a true style when it comes to making the ordinary world uncanny. Running from a wind-front. Approaching a tree with pure terror. The idea is absurd, but with the correct suspension of disbelief, it works.
This is not to say that this movie is flawless. In fact, its flaws ultimately conspire to trivialize what could have been a very powerful piece of work. Yes, it has exceptionally strong moments, but the overall film could have been a lot stronger if not for a few elements. M. Night Shyamalan has a little problem: he knows that he’s a good storyteller, knows that he knows his stuff, but he can get a little cocky. There’s always that one extra thing that just has to be thrown into a set-up, and that’s the thing that breaks it.
However, at the same time that certain plotpoints are plagued with kitchen-sinkiness, dialogue suffers from the opposite problem. While I realize that half the point of this film is that no one knows what’s going on, would it be too much to ask for a wee bit of specificity? If all you can do is reference the film’s title and such phrases as “the event” or “it’s an act of nature”, there’s something wrong... or at least annoying.
Also, while I realize that half the strength of this movie is the acute portrayal of regular people in the face of calamity, after spending almost the entire movie making them at least respectable, why go and make them do something impossibly stupid seemingly without good reason? It’s an easy way to make the movie end quickly, but it’s still jarring and smacks of artistic laziness.
When The Happening is good (in its elegant portrayal of how people react to the incomprehensible) it’s very good. When it’s bad, it’s exceedingly frustrating. Shyamalan is an intelligent and very interesting film-creator, but he he can’t rest on his laurels too much -- that’s when things go wrong.
This movie is going to disappoint if you’re looking for action or cheap thrills; if you’re more in search of cerebral, meditative dread, The Happening is not a bad choice. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but it doesn’t deserve the derision with which it has been laden.
7/10
Friday, July 4, 2008
Point by Point: Village of the Damned (1995) 2/10
A remake by John Carpenter of the creepy classic, the story pretty much stays the same - Everyone in a small town blacks out and wakes up hours later. Within a few weeks, it seems all women of child-bearing age in the town are pregnant. They have children who quickly develop into white-haired, hyper-logical, mind-controling devil-kids. But perhaps it's not the devil . . .
The Good: Well, it doesn't COMPLETELY ruin the original movie.
The Bad: But it sure tried to. The casting / acting is sub-par, with Christopher Reeves the only one doing anything resembling a good job, and that's only if you like his style. The soundtrack is distractingly made-for-tv bad. While the first movie kept the story tight and the kids scary, this one wanders all over the place and has the kids almost parodying the oirginal ones. Plus, the colored eyes when the kids are doing their mind control thing are far less frightening than the all-white of the first film.
The Ugly: It's a toss up between a man who passes out on a grill for hours and Kristie Alley's performance. She really is THAT bad.
Points Pondered
The Good: Well, it doesn't COMPLETELY ruin the original movie.
The Bad: But it sure tried to. The casting / acting is sub-par, with Christopher Reeves the only one doing anything resembling a good job, and that's only if you like his style. The soundtrack is distractingly made-for-tv bad. While the first movie kept the story tight and the kids scary, this one wanders all over the place and has the kids almost parodying the oirginal ones. Plus, the colored eyes when the kids are doing their mind control thing are far less frightening than the all-white of the first film.
The Ugly: It's a toss up between a man who passes out on a grill for hours and Kristie Alley's performance. She really is THAT bad.
Points Pondered
- People take it in stride that the kids grow up abnormally fast, are super-smart and seem to be able to read minds. However, they can't figure why all these people seem to have accidents around the children. They are just SHOCKED to find out that they're being forced to commit suicide. These people are idiots.
- It's too bad this is the last movie Christopher Reeves did before his accident. Not Raul Julia Street Figher tragic, but still.
- I always thought of John Carpenter as an awesome director, but then I actually looked at his filmography. Pretty much the definition of hit or miss. Still, he gave us They Live and The Thing (not to mention Snake Plissken) so I guess he's still cool.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Point by Point: High Tension 3/10
Two friends go to one's parents' vacation house for a bit of fun. As luck would have it, a French hillbilly shows up and starts murdering everyone. Our heroine will not stand for it. Well, she'll stand for it while most of the family gets murdered, but THEN she will not stand for it.
The Good: True to it's title, High Tension keeps things tight and brutal. Constant suspense and plenty of gore. The heroine is also a notch above the usual horror fare, and looks tough if nothing else.
The Bad: The dubbing is fairly atrocious, but it's the unspeakably stupid / illogical / physically impossible twist near the end that brings this movie down to a 3. It does explain some of the more idioitic actions by our heroine, but it just obliterates whatever suspension of disbelief the audience may have been harboring.
The Ugly: There is a scene early on where we see the hillbilly using the head of a victim for illicit purposes. Don't think about it, just keeping going.
Points Pondered
The Good: True to it's title, High Tension keeps things tight and brutal. Constant suspense and plenty of gore. The heroine is also a notch above the usual horror fare, and looks tough if nothing else.
The Bad: The dubbing is fairly atrocious, but it's the unspeakably stupid / illogical / physically impossible twist near the end that brings this movie down to a 3. It does explain some of the more idioitic actions by our heroine, but it just obliterates whatever suspension of disbelief the audience may have been harboring.
The Ugly: There is a scene early on where we see the hillbilly using the head of a victim for illicit purposes. Don't think about it, just keeping going.
Points Pondered
- I didn't even know France HAD hillbillies. It just goes to show you that hillbilly murder is a growing epidemic.
- I'll bet you'll never guess that when it looks like the killer has died, he actually hasn't! I was SO surprised, I almost wet myself.
- The movie is half dubbed, and there's really no rhyme or reason for which lines get translated. It's as if they started, saw how idiotic it looked and just gave up.
- I want to punch the director SO HARD for screwing up this movie. He had a perfectly servicable horror film, and then he just flushed it down the toilet with his ending. Apparently Luc Besson helped him with it. Luc, I thought you were cool!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)