My Little Miss Sunshine review was the extent of my thoughts on oscar nominated movies of 2007, but I had promised to write a little more on other Best Picture nominees. Of 2007. Okay, I'm catching up a little slow (and I'm totally late for anything M80 was doing), but here goes.
Children of Men: Solid. A very compelling allegory about a world made sterile, literally and figuratively. The violence that permeates 90 minutes of the movie makes the one minute of silence brought by a wailing infant very powerful. People dealing with infertility will have a unique perspective on this movie. Worthy Best Picture nominee, but not the year's best.
Pan's Labyrinth: Visually spectacular, but maybe I saw it too late; the incredible number of glowing reviews I read made me think I was going to see one of the greatest movies of all time. It was definitely good and a worthy nominee but not the years best. I will say that the scene where the white thing chases the little girl down the hallway gave me nightmares.
Little Miss Sunshine was still the best of 2007 for me. In 2008, I fell far behind in my movie watching. Having a child does that; we've seen three movies in the theater since George was born (and about as many rentals) and he turns one next week. He's a pretty good picture in and of himself, though. I'm still trying to piece together what little movie thoughts I've had in 2008. Ratatouille and Juno were both excellent. No Country for Old Men was a welcome reacquaintance with classic Coen movies. Michael Clayton was overblown junk. Was that really all the movies I saw? Jeez. Maybe I can write more stuff for M80 in 2009.
Well, screw it. I saw The Dark Knight and it was fantastic, especially because old friend Mike Vieau had a very notable scene and almost the entire movie was filmed in Chicago. Hopefully there's a third Christopher Nolan Batman movie shot here and more worthy Chicago actors will get exposure.
Stay tuned for upcoming Factory Theater news, which where I happily spend the little free time I have.
Showing posts with label Movie Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movie Review. Show all posts
Friday, September 26, 2008
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Homage to a Master
"At the Movies" officially closed up shop this past weekend. This show, with Gene Siskel (later Richard Roeper) and Roger Ebert, provided thoughts on movies for 33 years. Over three decades. The show reached its "Jesus Birthday." It had life and love of movies. I'm connected to this show in two ways.
First, I love the movies and occasionally dabble in my own review and criticism of the medium (see sidebar at right). I've won an online contest for one review, but that's the limit of my accolades as a movie critic. Siskel & Ebert were the masters. They became one of the most recognized and legitimate standards of movie measurement for decades. They formed a unique love-hate relationship with the movies and each other (more on this later). Even after Siskel's untimely death, "At the Movies" continued for years with Richard Roeper. For my money, Siskel was better and the main reason the show kept its success was Ebert's ability and fame. Ebert can accept a teen sex comedy and horror movies for what they are and what they do, and he recognizes these types of movies when they do their work well and chastises them when they're only fluff. I don't think Roeper can appreciate a well-done horror movie. It's not high brow enough for him. That's his loss. See for yourself in his interview with Ebert on Chicago Tonight the next time it's replayed.
My second connection to "At the Movies" is from the Factory Theater's production of Siskel & Ebert Save Chicago which Roger Ebert himself came to watch and was kind enough to mention on his own site. I have love and respect for Roger Ebert because of his relationship with movies and his patronage of the Factory Theater. Ebert is a masterful writer and critic. Look no further than the eloquence personified from Ebert's own statement on the ending of his show (many thanks to good buddy Eric Roach from the Factory for sharing this). I felt several heart muscles rip as Ebert comes to the "time to awake from my daydream." That still hurts. I will be eagerly awaiting his next venture and I'm so happy for all he has given to movies.
On Sunday, I read an exceptional article from Christopher Borrelli at the Tribune. In case the Tribune link dies, here are some highlights to illustrate:
"[With the ending of 'At the Movies'] the informed movie review can be placed officially on the endangered species list. On TV, let's just declare it extinct."
"Siskel and Ebert said what they felt, and you never doubted their sincerity or honesty. Even today—especially today—this remains a radical idea. What Siskel and Ebert created is still the closest that television criticism has ever come to former New Yorker writer Pauline Kael's insistence that 'the critic is the only independent source of information. The rest is advertising.'"
"...what chills the blood is that film criticism has been so diminished in recent years that Disney-ABC didn't even attempt to replace reputation with reputation, or continue what Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert started. "
"But I bet for the average everyday moviegoers who rarely think beyond 'I liked it' or "I hated it" and who rarely consider aesthetics or polemics or politics when they go to a multiplex, the end of the original incarnation of "At the Movies" will feel like the finale of film criticism itself. The argument has ended. And the argument, as "At the Movies" taught us, was the thing—that art itself was arguable, and that was OK."
"Indeed, it wouldn't be an overstatement to say that for a generation or two of moviegoers, it was Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert who introduced the idea that good criticism is not about finality or consensus or putting your thumb up or down. It's about argument itself."
I'm in total agreement with Mr. Borrelli and I only want to add one thing. In addition to the arguments they generate, what makes movies and "At the Movies" so valuable are the relationships to the movie material and the people who are with you, whether you're discussing the movie together or watching it. Siskel and Ebert formed close relationships to their movies and a closer relationship with each other. These relationships were rocky (sometimes ugly), they were happy, and they were honest. A family of and about the movies plus all the sometimes awful, sometimes great dynamics that go with family. A family for 33 years, complete with arguments. It was good and it shall be missed.
First, I love the movies and occasionally dabble in my own review and criticism of the medium (see sidebar at right). I've won an online contest for one review, but that's the limit of my accolades as a movie critic. Siskel & Ebert were the masters. They became one of the most recognized and legitimate standards of movie measurement for decades. They formed a unique love-hate relationship with the movies and each other (more on this later). Even after Siskel's untimely death, "At the Movies" continued for years with Richard Roeper. For my money, Siskel was better and the main reason the show kept its success was Ebert's ability and fame. Ebert can accept a teen sex comedy and horror movies for what they are and what they do, and he recognizes these types of movies when they do their work well and chastises them when they're only fluff. I don't think Roeper can appreciate a well-done horror movie. It's not high brow enough for him. That's his loss. See for yourself in his interview with Ebert on Chicago Tonight the next time it's replayed.
My second connection to "At the Movies" is from the Factory Theater's production of Siskel & Ebert Save Chicago which Roger Ebert himself came to watch and was kind enough to mention on his own site. I have love and respect for Roger Ebert because of his relationship with movies and his patronage of the Factory Theater. Ebert is a masterful writer and critic. Look no further than the eloquence personified from Ebert's own statement on the ending of his show (many thanks to good buddy Eric Roach from the Factory for sharing this). I felt several heart muscles rip as Ebert comes to the "time to awake from my daydream." That still hurts. I will be eagerly awaiting his next venture and I'm so happy for all he has given to movies.
On Sunday, I read an exceptional article from Christopher Borrelli at the Tribune. In case the Tribune link dies, here are some highlights to illustrate:
"[With the ending of 'At the Movies'] the informed movie review can be placed officially on the endangered species list. On TV, let's just declare it extinct."
"Siskel and Ebert said what they felt, and you never doubted their sincerity or honesty. Even today—especially today—this remains a radical idea. What Siskel and Ebert created is still the closest that television criticism has ever come to former New Yorker writer Pauline Kael's insistence that 'the critic is the only independent source of information. The rest is advertising.'"
"...what chills the blood is that film criticism has been so diminished in recent years that Disney-ABC didn't even attempt to replace reputation with reputation, or continue what Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert started. "
"But I bet for the average everyday moviegoers who rarely think beyond 'I liked it' or "I hated it" and who rarely consider aesthetics or polemics or politics when they go to a multiplex, the end of the original incarnation of "At the Movies" will feel like the finale of film criticism itself. The argument has ended. And the argument, as "At the Movies" taught us, was the thing—that art itself was arguable, and that was OK."
"Indeed, it wouldn't be an overstatement to say that for a generation or two of moviegoers, it was Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert who introduced the idea that good criticism is not about finality or consensus or putting your thumb up or down. It's about argument itself."
I'm in total agreement with Mr. Borrelli and I only want to add one thing. In addition to the arguments they generate, what makes movies and "At the Movies" so valuable are the relationships to the movie material and the people who are with you, whether you're discussing the movie together or watching it. Siskel and Ebert formed close relationships to their movies and a closer relationship with each other. These relationships were rocky (sometimes ugly), they were happy, and they were honest. A family of and about the movies plus all the sometimes awful, sometimes great dynamics that go with family. A family for 33 years, complete with arguments. It was good and it shall be missed.
Friday, June 13, 2008
'Nite, Night.
It's been a really long time since I wrote anything movie related. A really, really long time. Damn. Movies are one of the great joys of my life, but home-buying and child-bearing (especially when done simultaneously) erase a lot of time that could be spent with movies. So here's some thoughts on something that also hasn't been around in a long time: a good movie by M. Night Shyamalan.
I have not seen The Happening and I'm not sure I will. The initial savage reviews are akin to the early bloodletting that The Lady in The Water received (I didn't see that movie either). With both movies, I was intrigued by some well-done previews and I don't think Shyamalan has ever lost his knack for creating some interesting premises. Sadly, based on reviews, it'll be three bads in a row for M. Night.
I can't speak for the success or failure of The Happening, but it is puzzling that such an incredibly successful and imaginative filmmaker could go from spectrum to opposite spectrum with his work. Maybe he doesn't give a damn what people think, maybe he's still convinced his movies are brilliant, maybe he just works for a paycheck like the rest of us; who knows?
The Sixth Sense is still a fantastic movie. The splashy twist at the end (does anyone not know by this point that Bruce Willis is a ghost?) created most of the buzz and played a large part in establishing Shyamalan's moviemaker identity, but the twist is not what makes The Sixth Sense so good. Toni Collette is a major reason why the movie succeeds so well. She terrifically plays her role of tortured mother struggling to care for her inexplicably and literally haunted son. Collette injects so much honest, raw emotion that she grounds the conflicts of the spiritual world into her own hard reality, making the movie's ghost story a real-life struggle. Shyamalan also did his best writing with The Sixth Sense. He's very good at creating an emotional investment in his characters and his movies. He's always been able to grab interest, and with The Sixth Sense, he made a valuable story of grieving people and family struggle to go along with a winning premise and the jaw dropper at the end.
Here's where it went wrong. Shyamalan wagered his success on making everyone's jaws drop lower. He figured that the basis for his success was fabricating the most amazing twist and basing his movies around the bait-and-switch. With the notable exception of Signs, Shyamalan's movies live and die by their twists. Signs didn't really have a "holy shit!" moment at the end, which is probably why Signs is Shyamalan's only other really good movie: Night got away from trying to bend his movies around their twists and simply wrote a good story about ordinary people struggling under extraordinary circumstances. The "holy shit!" moments kept coming in his other movies, but they weren't always a pleasant surprise.
The Village pissed me off. The first half of that movie is really good. Shyamalan created a fantastic medieval world with scary monsters running around an engaging love story between Joaquin Phoenix and Bryce Howard (I refuse to validate that stupid three name thing popular among some actors unless you've earned those props through such kickass work as being Buffy The Vampire Slayer: S.M. Gellar [heh heh], you're worthy.) The twist of The Village is so ludicrous that it's insulting. Shyamalan devalued his entire movie with that stupid twist. It's a pity that the movie was based around trying to pull off the most amazing switcheroo. Problem is, people's jaws only drop so far, and if your only goal is to dislocate mandibles through surprise, you're going to miss more often than not.
The Happening may suffer because of that same instinct. If so, it's really a shame. M. N. Shyamalan is really a good writer and talented filmmaker. Maybe it would have been better had he not had such dizzying success with The Sixth Sense as his first movie. He might have had too many people telling him he's brilliant and how oh-so-amazed they were at the end of that movie. That might have made him forget why he was able to make a good movie through his characters' struggles. The twists aren't what made him a successful filmmaker. They certainly helped and my jaw was on the floor with everybody else's at the reveal of Bruce Willis' actual condition, but the movie was already good. I hope that Night puts his twisties to bed and wakes his basic storymaking skills back up; it's a question of whether that twisting instinct wants to go down or not.
I have not seen The Happening and I'm not sure I will. The initial savage reviews are akin to the early bloodletting that The Lady in The Water received (I didn't see that movie either). With both movies, I was intrigued by some well-done previews and I don't think Shyamalan has ever lost his knack for creating some interesting premises. Sadly, based on reviews, it'll be three bads in a row for M. Night.
I can't speak for the success or failure of The Happening, but it is puzzling that such an incredibly successful and imaginative filmmaker could go from spectrum to opposite spectrum with his work. Maybe he doesn't give a damn what people think, maybe he's still convinced his movies are brilliant, maybe he just works for a paycheck like the rest of us; who knows?
The Sixth Sense is still a fantastic movie. The splashy twist at the end (does anyone not know by this point that Bruce Willis is a ghost?) created most of the buzz and played a large part in establishing Shyamalan's moviemaker identity, but the twist is not what makes The Sixth Sense so good. Toni Collette is a major reason why the movie succeeds so well. She terrifically plays her role of tortured mother struggling to care for her inexplicably and literally haunted son. Collette injects so much honest, raw emotion that she grounds the conflicts of the spiritual world into her own hard reality, making the movie's ghost story a real-life struggle. Shyamalan also did his best writing with The Sixth Sense. He's very good at creating an emotional investment in his characters and his movies. He's always been able to grab interest, and with The Sixth Sense, he made a valuable story of grieving people and family struggle to go along with a winning premise and the jaw dropper at the end.
Here's where it went wrong. Shyamalan wagered his success on making everyone's jaws drop lower. He figured that the basis for his success was fabricating the most amazing twist and basing his movies around the bait-and-switch. With the notable exception of Signs, Shyamalan's movies live and die by their twists. Signs didn't really have a "holy shit!" moment at the end, which is probably why Signs is Shyamalan's only other really good movie: Night got away from trying to bend his movies around their twists and simply wrote a good story about ordinary people struggling under extraordinary circumstances. The "holy shit!" moments kept coming in his other movies, but they weren't always a pleasant surprise.
The Village pissed me off. The first half of that movie is really good. Shyamalan created a fantastic medieval world with scary monsters running around an engaging love story between Joaquin Phoenix and Bryce Howard (I refuse to validate that stupid three name thing popular among some actors unless you've earned those props through such kickass work as being Buffy The Vampire Slayer: S.M. Gellar [heh heh], you're worthy.) The twist of The Village is so ludicrous that it's insulting. Shyamalan devalued his entire movie with that stupid twist. It's a pity that the movie was based around trying to pull off the most amazing switcheroo. Problem is, people's jaws only drop so far, and if your only goal is to dislocate mandibles through surprise, you're going to miss more often than not.
The Happening may suffer because of that same instinct. If so, it's really a shame. M. N. Shyamalan is really a good writer and talented filmmaker. Maybe it would have been better had he not had such dizzying success with The Sixth Sense as his first movie. He might have had too many people telling him he's brilliant and how oh-so-amazed they were at the end of that movie. That might have made him forget why he was able to make a good movie through his characters' struggles. The twists aren't what made him a successful filmmaker. They certainly helped and my jaw was on the floor with everybody else's at the reveal of Bruce Willis' actual condition, but the movie was already good. I hope that Night puts his twisties to bed and wakes his basic storymaking skills back up; it's a question of whether that twisting instinct wants to go down or not.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Successful Followup
Shaun of the Dead is easily the best horror-comedy since Saturday the 14th. I don’t count Creepshow or Tales from the Crypt because they are horror narratives that occasionally delve into comedy. Shaun of the Dead holds a special and unique place in movies for me because of its successful genre-crossover. It is definitely a horror movie, but it is also very funny. The plot is familiar; zombies destroy civilization while a few ragged survivors fight for their lives. The first big laughs come from the blissful obliviousness of the main characters as their world crumbles around them. The laughs continue as the well-directed cast of strong actors encounter and escape zombie peril while London crashes. Writer/star Simon Pegg, writer/director Edgar Wright, and co-star Nick Frost created a gem. Naturally, it’s exciting to see a reunion of these same principal minds (along with some of the Dead cast) to take on a new genre through a comedic lens. Hot Fuzz opened last weekend and I was there to see it.
It’s fun. Lots of fun. There’s much of the same successful formula. The comedy comes from good use of old jokes and jollying with the police-action movie genre. Yet Hot Fuzz never becomes straight parody along the lines of Airplane, Hot Shots, or The Naked Gun. As with Shaun of the Dead, Pegg and Wright respect their genre while playing around. There’s loud and impressive gun battles, splattery murders, and all-around good combat. There’s also an intriguing, if not overly complex murder-mystery plot. Simply put, Pegg (a hard-case London cop forcefully re-assigned to the rural country) must find out why so many back-woods Brits in a small, peaceful village are being suspiciously bumped off. Frost plays a bumbling member of local law-enforcement and Jim Broadbent (an accomplished actor in his own right) plays the forcefully docile local Chief of Police. The deaths are obviously murders, but the townsfolk are content to write everything off as quaint accidents. Pegg spends a large portion of the movie trying to convince the small-town yokels and himself that he’s not imagining everything.
This brings me to my one major complaint; the movie is about 10 minutes too long. There isn’t one scene or character or plot that needs to be chopped. Rather, a few small parts could be pared off throughout. There’s maybe a few too many minutes of overly simple-minded townsfolk, a couple of trim-able scenes of nearly catching the murderer again, and a bumbling moment or two to remove. This is not a crippling fault, but a slightly shorter running time would have helped. Something that works so well shouldn't be overdone. At least it's a good movie that's a little long. Comparing this movie to another consumable would be to say that it's more akin to eating too much good food rather than a good meal gone bad.
Having addressed an unexpected fault, here’s a pleasant surprise. Timothy Dalton is really good. He plays the clearly and savoringly evil big businessman taking advantage of the small town folk. In addition, he always shows up at crime scenes having made obviously incriminating remarks just before murders occur: “He’ll be in little bits tomorrow” and “I’d love to crack your skull open” are two choice examples. Dalton takes to his part with relish and he’s enjoyable to watch. Nice to see a less successful ex-Bond make good. The addled members of the local SWAT team and the hick townspeople make up an excellent ensemble. The story works, the movie flows well, and great genre-bending is in full effect. Pegg and Wright also take the time to develop their characters and create a sense of conflict and development for a larger story among the comedy, blood, and bullets. Pegg’s and Frost’s characters both have personal issues to solve, and the movie takes several turns that make the mystery and action more complex. The movie works really well in many ways, and I’m glad to say that the smart-minded folk behind Shaun of the Dead did themselves good again. I hope the movie gets wide release and this creative team gets it well-deserved due so that we can see more of their work.
It’s fun. Lots of fun. There’s much of the same successful formula. The comedy comes from good use of old jokes and jollying with the police-action movie genre. Yet Hot Fuzz never becomes straight parody along the lines of Airplane, Hot Shots, or The Naked Gun. As with Shaun of the Dead, Pegg and Wright respect their genre while playing around. There’s loud and impressive gun battles, splattery murders, and all-around good combat. There’s also an intriguing, if not overly complex murder-mystery plot. Simply put, Pegg (a hard-case London cop forcefully re-assigned to the rural country) must find out why so many back-woods Brits in a small, peaceful village are being suspiciously bumped off. Frost plays a bumbling member of local law-enforcement and Jim Broadbent (an accomplished actor in his own right) plays the forcefully docile local Chief of Police. The deaths are obviously murders, but the townsfolk are content to write everything off as quaint accidents. Pegg spends a large portion of the movie trying to convince the small-town yokels and himself that he’s not imagining everything.
This brings me to my one major complaint; the movie is about 10 minutes too long. There isn’t one scene or character or plot that needs to be chopped. Rather, a few small parts could be pared off throughout. There’s maybe a few too many minutes of overly simple-minded townsfolk, a couple of trim-able scenes of nearly catching the murderer again, and a bumbling moment or two to remove. This is not a crippling fault, but a slightly shorter running time would have helped. Something that works so well shouldn't be overdone. At least it's a good movie that's a little long. Comparing this movie to another consumable would be to say that it's more akin to eating too much good food rather than a good meal gone bad.
Having addressed an unexpected fault, here’s a pleasant surprise. Timothy Dalton is really good. He plays the clearly and savoringly evil big businessman taking advantage of the small town folk. In addition, he always shows up at crime scenes having made obviously incriminating remarks just before murders occur: “He’ll be in little bits tomorrow” and “I’d love to crack your skull open” are two choice examples. Dalton takes to his part with relish and he’s enjoyable to watch. Nice to see a less successful ex-Bond make good. The addled members of the local SWAT team and the hick townspeople make up an excellent ensemble. The story works, the movie flows well, and great genre-bending is in full effect. Pegg and Wright also take the time to develop their characters and create a sense of conflict and development for a larger story among the comedy, blood, and bullets. Pegg’s and Frost’s characters both have personal issues to solve, and the movie takes several turns that make the mystery and action more complex. The movie works really well in many ways, and I’m glad to say that the smart-minded folk behind Shaun of the Dead did themselves good again. I hope the movie gets wide release and this creative team gets it well-deserved due so that we can see more of their work.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
A Welcome Prize
I'm pleased to report that my Little Miss Sunshine review won an online contest from m80 and I now have a sparkling new copy of Little Miss Sunshine (movie info) as a prize. Like my theater work, I don't expect to be compensated for writing, but I sure do appreciate any sort of pay when it does come. Ideally, of course, I'd be compensated commensurate to the time, sweat, blood, etc. I've put into the two crafts I love so dearly, but if I did either of these activities for the money, I'd have left them over ten years ago. So I will take a few seconds to bask in the appreciation of the moment.
'Kay. I'm done.
Regardless of contests or compensation, I firmly believe that Little Miss Sunshine was the best movie of the year last year. The Departed, Babel, The Devil Wears Prada were all fine movies, but did not fulfill as much as LMS did. I'll gladly post thoughts about those movies later to show their worth. I'm sure I'll write about Pan's Labyrinth and Children of Men as well, but in the realm of storytelling, meaningful comedic reflection, and ensemble acting, nothing's touching LMS for a long time, if ever.
More reviews to see:
Hot Fuzz
The Descent
Musings on M. Night Shyamalan
'Kay. I'm done.
Regardless of contests or compensation, I firmly believe that Little Miss Sunshine was the best movie of the year last year. The Departed, Babel, The Devil Wears Prada were all fine movies, but did not fulfill as much as LMS did. I'll gladly post thoughts about those movies later to show their worth. I'm sure I'll write about Pan's Labyrinth and Children of Men as well, but in the realm of storytelling, meaningful comedic reflection, and ensemble acting, nothing's touching LMS for a long time, if ever.
More reviews to see:
Hot Fuzz
The Descent
Musings on M. Night Shyamalan
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Little Miss Sunshine (My second review, semi-requested)
UPDATE: This post won an award. A small one, but still an award. DETAILS.
The Oscar race is heating up, and I have to push for Little Miss Sunshine. Why? Primarily because this could have been an awful movie. The script has very treacle content that could easily turn into emotionally overblown performances. Not that the writing is bad, but there is a high degree of sentimentality, requiring great skill of the directors and actors to avoid melodramatic pitfalls. Fortunately, the ensemble is blessed with gifted actors who can dance between the comedic and dramatic with enviable ease and directors who know how to showcase their actors.
This is the story of a family and the challenges to its unity. Make no mistake, this is a comedy (and an extremely funny one) but serious issues abound: family dissolution, suicide, lost love, bankruptcy, and exploitation. The joy of the movie for me was the continuing escape from the ever present threat of total family ruin. The family faces one crisis after another, yet as an audience, we're given the gift of invested detachment in the action as one thing after another goes wrong for the beautifully hapless family. We're given the ability to live that familiar crisis response trope of "one day we'll look back on this and laugh" from a safe distance. The action moves smoothly and the movie moves fluidly through its plot. The actors invest so much commitment and life to their characters that they're lovable even when life brings out the worst in them. We've known and faced the disappointments that the characters experience, and its refreshing to see their hilarious lack of a smooth, gracious response to life's problems. Family implosion under stress seen through honesty and humor is one of the many strengths of this movie.
The previously-mentioned strengths (sweet but not overly sentimental story, powerful cast, equal parts hilarity and gravity, smart directors) are enough to make this film an oscar-worthy jewel. However, the wonderfully funny satire of the Little Miss Sunshine Pageant is what catapults this movie to an elite place for me. The subtle commentary on perceptions of beauty and its disturbing influences is realized so well that I still hurt from laughing at it on my third viewing. This is a beautiful little movie of the highest quality. I hope it's rewarded as such.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Voodoo Moon: My First (and possibly last) Requested Review
About a month ago, Mel Marchesseault from Anchor Bay Entertainment contacted me to see if I would give a little advertising and write a review for one of their new releases, Voodoo Moon, starring Eric Mabius and Charisma Carpenter. I'm very pleased that my little blogzine has attracted a bit of attention and I'm flattered that Mr. Marchesseault would contact me for my opinion on the film. I received the advance DVD copy a little over a week ago and gave it a look-see.
Here's the plot: a brother and sister are the only surviving members of Merrifield, Tennessee, a sleepy town that was wiped out twenty years earlier by a demonic onslaught. Brother Cole (Eric Mabius of Resident Evil) and sister Heather (Charisma Carpenter of Buffy The Vampire Slayer and Angel) both have cloudy and somewhat unexplained psychic powers that they use to fight the devil (Rik Young), a dapper black-goateed fellow who is, as usual, preparing to unleash the apocalypse on poor old earth.
As for the production, I'm instantly in doubt anytime the opening credits finish with "Written, edited, produced and directed by [the same person]." That's a lot of hats to carry. The multitasker in this case is Kevin Van Hook, known for visual effects supervision in big-budget films, I, Robot and Daredevil to name just a couple. Voodoo Moon certainly has fancy light shows and the special effects level exceeds most low-budget horror fare. I got a particular kick out of a possessed priest flicking bullets out of mid-air to dispatch his hapless victim. Creating imaginative effects and scenarios to facilitate those effects are a strength of Van Hook's. However, writing and directing are not among Van Hook's strengths at this point; possibly the work load of four job titles was too much or nobody bothered to resolve the glaring script and directing problems. There are too many characters, too many unexplained and/or unnecessary plot lines and the pace is jerky and uneven. The smoothest parts of the movie are when the computer-generated effects are commanding the action, but effects without effective people and compelling stories to drive them ultimately don't satisfy.
In terms of performances, the clearly well-experienced cast delivers solid work, for the most part. Carpenter is her usual enjoyable bratty princess self. The psychically connected rag-tag group of supporting fighters also have accomplished resumes, Jeffrey Combs and John Amos especially, but their connections to the plot are spotty and their characters aren't developed enough to warrant investment. Mabius, the lead defender against the apocalypse, is too monotone, seemingly relying on his (also unexplained) facial scar to emote tough and rebellious so he doesn't have to relate to his scene partners. One happy exception to this is a quiet healing scene, notably with no fancy effects whatsoever, that he shares with the very accomplished and horror-friendly Dee Wallace Stone (The Howling, Cujo). Stone understands that less is sometimes more and fancy sound and light shows will only carry an audience so far. Stone, seemingly like the script development and directing process, is unfortunately killed off far too early and her grounding influence is missed.
Van Hook is clearly an able filmmaker and the amount of talented and accomplished actors in this film speaks well of his connections and workability within the industry. Van Hook should share the storymaking and storytelling workloads for his next project so that he can focus on his truest strength: crafting cool visual imagery. I admire the workload that Van Hook gave himself and I credit his ability to assemble an impressive ensemble, but he needs to fill in his writing and production ensemble as well as he does his actors. That way, the sounds and lights will have finer storytelling surroundings. Anyone who understands the technical requirements for CGI effects ought to translate that dedication of resources to writing and directing. Address the full process and good results will follow.
Monday, August 14, 2006
Back into Horror
Can't get away from it, especially after seeing a truly fine example of the horror genre in The Descent. I've been moaning about the current state of horror movies as I see them and talking about some new developments in the genre, mostly from Asian cinema, but it had still been a long time since I genuinely got scared watching a movie. Not after this weekend.
When I first heard a commercial for The Descent, I thought it might be another shlockly gore-fest along the lines of Hostel or the remake of The Hills Have Eyes. The deep-voiced voice-over guy who reads copy for most horror commercials opens the commercial with (paraphrased), "People are concerned that amount of blood and gore in The Descent goes too far." The basic premise is that a group of young women into extreme sports adventure get together to try exploring a deep cave system in the remote Appalachian Mountains. The caves contain a few surprises (creepy creatures being only one of them) and so do the interactions between the characters. It is true that there is plenty of blood and gore, but, I know it sounds silly, the gore is purposeful. I'll continue to write about this while trying not to give too much away.
Along with purposeful gore, a reason The Descent works is because it successfully combines four primal human fears: enclosed spaces, heights, darkness, and monsters. The scariest parts of this movie don't even involve the monsters. While the beasties are scary (and provide the best jump moments), what is truly frightening is the suffocating feel that the caves create as the women delve further into the earth. Another reason the movie works (and this is where Hostel and The Hills Have Eyes remake failed miserably) is because the characters aren't stupid. They are people out of their element and their vulnerabilities are clearly exposed, but they don't have inconvenient stumbles while being chased or have overly convenient lapses in judgment. Furthermore, the protagonists are all women and they are all strong women, which I found a welcome approach. Writer/Director Neil Marshall gives his women just enough development into their character and excels at building the fear through vulnerable surroundings. The caves are dark, there are numerous places to fall far down into deep pits and narrow cracks where slim bodies can barely squeeze through or easily get stuck. Those surroundings are scary enough. Spice in some shadowy crawlers that tear flesh with their teeth and there are four deadly elements to create plenty of shivers and jumps.
Finally, to return to the gore, the movie works because the characters fight for survival against the elements and frightening predators that pitilessly kill just like any other animal or element. Animals eat people. When people get eaten, gory things happen. Thus, purposeful gore that is ripe for horror fodder, especially when paired with elemental combat against nature and somewhat supernatural nasties. The fight for survival is thrilling as the women descend into savagery to match their creature and nature antagonists. There is more than one Cro-Magnon moment that's very satisfying. The icing on the cake is the interactions between the characters and how their relationships break down or strengthen in the circumstances, especially between two characters with a history. I won't say more as it would spoil the richness.
So go to this movie. See it in the theater because you can share the inevitable titters with those around you as you experience fears and jumps together. If horror is your love, this is an exotic romance in a rich land with an alluring partner. Enjoy your night together.
When I first heard a commercial for The Descent, I thought it might be another shlockly gore-fest along the lines of Hostel or the remake of The Hills Have Eyes. The deep-voiced voice-over guy who reads copy for most horror commercials opens the commercial with (paraphrased), "People are concerned that amount of blood and gore in The Descent goes too far." The basic premise is that a group of young women into extreme sports adventure get together to try exploring a deep cave system in the remote Appalachian Mountains. The caves contain a few surprises (creepy creatures being only one of them) and so do the interactions between the characters. It is true that there is plenty of blood and gore, but, I know it sounds silly, the gore is purposeful. I'll continue to write about this while trying not to give too much away.
Along with purposeful gore, a reason The Descent works is because it successfully combines four primal human fears: enclosed spaces, heights, darkness, and monsters. The scariest parts of this movie don't even involve the monsters. While the beasties are scary (and provide the best jump moments), what is truly frightening is the suffocating feel that the caves create as the women delve further into the earth. Another reason the movie works (and this is where Hostel and The Hills Have Eyes remake failed miserably) is because the characters aren't stupid. They are people out of their element and their vulnerabilities are clearly exposed, but they don't have inconvenient stumbles while being chased or have overly convenient lapses in judgment. Furthermore, the protagonists are all women and they are all strong women, which I found a welcome approach. Writer/Director Neil Marshall gives his women just enough development into their character and excels at building the fear through vulnerable surroundings. The caves are dark, there are numerous places to fall far down into deep pits and narrow cracks where slim bodies can barely squeeze through or easily get stuck. Those surroundings are scary enough. Spice in some shadowy crawlers that tear flesh with their teeth and there are four deadly elements to create plenty of shivers and jumps.
Finally, to return to the gore, the movie works because the characters fight for survival against the elements and frightening predators that pitilessly kill just like any other animal or element. Animals eat people. When people get eaten, gory things happen. Thus, purposeful gore that is ripe for horror fodder, especially when paired with elemental combat against nature and somewhat supernatural nasties. The fight for survival is thrilling as the women descend into savagery to match their creature and nature antagonists. There is more than one Cro-Magnon moment that's very satisfying. The icing on the cake is the interactions between the characters and how their relationships break down or strengthen in the circumstances, especially between two characters with a history. I won't say more as it would spoil the richness.
So go to this movie. See it in the theater because you can share the inevitable titters with those around you as you experience fears and jumps together. If horror is your love, this is an exotic romance in a rich land with an alluring partner. Enjoy your night together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
