I had the opportunity to see Identity again recently, and I had forgotten what an entertaining mystery movie it is. While I am just short of calling the cast "ensemble", nearly every actor is well established (or better) including: John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Ray Liotta, Alfred Molina, John Hawkes, John McGinley, Clea DuVall, Jake Busey, Rebecca De Mornay, and Pruitt Taylor Vince. The film is directed by James Mangold (Walk the Line, 3:10 to Yuma). 'R' rating is for violence, and language.
Very Basics: Within 24 hours, convicted murderer Malcolm Rivers (Vince) will be executed for 6 murders that he previously confessed to committing. His psychiatrist, Dr. Malick (Molina) has just recently come across some evidence that may allow a judge to stay the execution.
Meanwhile, 10 random people, end up stuck in a roadside motel, in the middle of the Nevada desert, during a heavy rain storm. One by one, these people are found murdered, with the remaining persons becoming increasingly scared and hostile trying to discover who is the murderer among them.
All is not what it seems, and these 2 plots are linked in ways in which we could never imagine.
**spoiler alert**
I think what I found amazing about this film is that it is only 90 minutes, yet the story did not feel full of holes, and I did not feel that the characters were underdeveloped. The tapestry woven by the writer and director is a true sight to behold. In fact, most of the characters at the hotel seemed to have some secret that he/she was concealing but was brought to light.
Here is a brief rundown of said characters and their part in this twisted plot:
Alice York is struck by a limo while standing on a rainy 2 lane Nevada road while her husband George (McGinley) was changing a flat tire. Alice's 9 year old son (and Geroge's step-son) Timmy is with them. Ed Dakota (Cusack) is the limo driver, chauffeuring 80's actress Caroline Suzanne (De Mornay) on the road. Ed, feeling responsible even though it was an accident, takes the 3 Yorks into the limo and they proceed to the motel, run by Larry Washington (Hawkes) searching for help. The phones are down at the motel, so Ed goes back out to get medics, trying to drive to the nearest town, 30 miles away. He crashes into a flooded ditch and runs into Paris Nevada (Peet), also stranded. They are picked up by Lou Isiana and his new bride Ginny (DuVall) who just got married in Las Vegas, but appear to angry at each other. The 4 head back to the hotel resigned to be stuck there through the storm. Also now present at the hotel are police officer Rhodes (Liotta) who is transporting a felon named Maine (Busey). So the with the characters all assembled at the motel, the murders begin.
So here is a little more about the some of the characters :
- Ed used to be a Los Angeles police officer, and seems to "take charge" of the group when the chaos begins to ensue. I would consider him the "lead" of the film beyond anyone else.
- Paris is a now-ex-prostitute on her way to Florida. Larry is the most vocal about his dislike of her due to her former profession.
- Larry is the manager of the motel. Larry, we learn, was actually a down on his luck gambler who blew his life savings in Las Vegas, and came to the motel discovering the manger dead. Larry then assumed the role of manager, thinking someone would eventually show up looking for the former manager, but no one ever did. Finding the old manger's body in a storage freezer, the group suspects Larry of being the murderer.
- Rhodes turns out to not actually be a cop. He and Maine were partners and killed the cop transporting them.
- We learn that Lou and Ginny got married because Ginny had claimed to be pregnant. She wasn't. This is one of the many problems between the two.
That's extreme:
So about an hour and five minutes into Identity, the audience is thrown for a total loop with a reveal about what is "reality" in the case of this story, and suddenly everything starts to make more sense. We learn that everything happening at the motel is going on in Malcom's mind. He is suffering from dissociative identity disorder, and each of the people we have seen are Malcom's multiple personalities. Dr. Malick is trying to end all of the multiples, especially the homicidal one so that Malcom might avoid the death penalty.
We are thrown for one more twist at the very end, but I will not ruin that one here.
Recommendation: Start to finish this is an excellent neo-Hitchcockian-type thriller mystery, with excellent writing, direction, story weaving, and acting - highlighted by Cusack and Vince.
My one criticism would be that because of the number of flashback sequences, the timeline seems a little disjointed at early points in the film. I should also note that because of the overall "fast pace" of the movie it is easy to miss the little "hints" about what you later learn.
I highly recommend seeing it.
Extras
- The plotline of the 10 strangers being murdered one by one is based on an Agatha Christe novel titled And Then There Were None.
Monday, April 29, 2013
Awesome movie quotes: Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986)
"Are you suggesting that I am not who I say I am?"
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Review: The Hunter (2011)
The Hunter is an Australian film starring Willem Dafoe, and based on a book of the same name written by Julia Leigh. It is directed by Daniel Nettheim. 'R' rating is for language, and brief violence - I would consider more like a PG-13.
**spoiler alert**
Martin David (Dafoe), that we quickly discern is a gun-for-hire, is contracted by a biotech company called Red Leaf to goto Tasmania and collect DNA and organ samples from the supposedly extinct Tasmanian Tiger. Red Leaf's contact states they have good information that there is at least one or more alive. Upon completion, they also want Martin to destroy any other Tasmanian Tiger specimens so no one else can also get the valuable DNA.
Martin heads to Tasmania and is set up through a local contact named Mindy (Sam Neill) to room with a family in relative vicinity to the wilderness where the Tiger has been sighted. The family consists of a single mother named Lucy (Frances O'Connor) and 2 children named Katie and Jamie. The house is a mess and has no electricity due to a broken generator. Lucy lays in bed all day, taking some sort of pills, depressed over the loss of her husband Jarrah, gone since the previous year and presumed dead. Martin, though frustrated, deposits his belongings and packs gear for his first trek out into the wilderness. An important note - no one locally knows Martin is there for the Tiger, he is using the cover that he is a naturalist studying Tasmanian Devils while he conducts his hunt.
Martin is soon driven out to the woods by Mindy and while conversing he learns several things: Jarrah was working for Red Leaf too; Mindy "helps" the Armstrong family and is supplying Lucy with the meds; also that the local population is wary of outsiders for multiple reasons. So Martin (now by himself), using a map, hunts through various areas of the Tasmania wilderness for 12 days at a time, and then returns to the Armstrong house for a few days to re-stock his supplies in between each outing.
On one of his return trips he fixes the generator and tells the kids to assist Lucy getting off the pills, which they agree to do. By his next return trip she is seemingly sober and the household is returning to some sense of normalcy while we see Martin is slowly becoming somewhat attached to the three. Lucy later reveals to Martin that Jarrah was hunting the Tiger for Red Leaf, but he decided instead to turn away from them to support the environment - which we are supposed to figure led to his demise.
Now the movie turns dark... Martin on his next trek out locates Jarrah's body (on an anonymous tip) and buries him. He also eventually locates the den of the Tiger and evidence that it is alive and still living here, but does not see the creature. Martin is soon attacked by another mercenary who was sent by Red Leaf, but Martin is able to kill him instead. Martin discovers the bad guy had been at the Armstrong house, so now he wants to conclude this "mission". He finally locates the Tasmanian Tiger, shots it and then cremates the body. Martin returns to the Armstrong house to find it was attacked and set on fire by the aforementioned mercenary (before he made his way out to the wilderness to find Martin). Lucy and Katie were killed, while Jamie escaped.
The movie ends with Martin calling Red Leaf and informing them that what they were looking for is gone forever, and that he will also be gone, too. Martin then finds Jamie at a boarding school, presumably to adopt him.
Thoughts and Recommendation:
The Hunter is more of an indie style drama than it is an action movie, even though my description of Martin cavorting about in the woods may conjure that image. The pace is somewhat slow and deliberate using the Tasmanian landscape and Martin's calculated independent tracking to fill the minutes. Martin's interactions with the Armstrongs, Mindy, and some of the locals is also very thoughtful and nuanced. The only real "action" I would point to is when the other Red Leaf mercenary shows up and he and Martin have a confrontation eventually leading to Martin shooting him in what amounts to self-defense.
This is a beautifully filmed movie, as it was actually shot in Tasmania. The scenery alone honestly made me want to travel there. It is also not often that a movie can prompt me to want to research elements, but after seeing this film, I immediately wanted to know more about the history of the Tasmanian Tiger and if there has been actual sightings.
Dafoe shines in his role; his transformation from the "loner" into a more "attached" human-being was subtle but great to watch. Neill and O'Connor despite limited screen time were both excellent choices in their supporting roles. (Sam Neill is a favorite actor of mine as it stands.)
When all is done the topics of conservation, hunting, animal extinction, human interaction, and generally the philosophy of where of each of us are in the natural world versus the technological "greedy" society we now live in - all come into light. I highly recommend it.
**spoiler alert**
Martin David (Dafoe), that we quickly discern is a gun-for-hire, is contracted by a biotech company called Red Leaf to goto Tasmania and collect DNA and organ samples from the supposedly extinct Tasmanian Tiger. Red Leaf's contact states they have good information that there is at least one or more alive. Upon completion, they also want Martin to destroy any other Tasmanian Tiger specimens so no one else can also get the valuable DNA.
Martin is soon driven out to the woods by Mindy and while conversing he learns several things: Jarrah was working for Red Leaf too; Mindy "helps" the Armstrong family and is supplying Lucy with the meds; also that the local population is wary of outsiders for multiple reasons. So Martin (now by himself), using a map, hunts through various areas of the Tasmania wilderness for 12 days at a time, and then returns to the Armstrong house for a few days to re-stock his supplies in between each outing.
On one of his return trips he fixes the generator and tells the kids to assist Lucy getting off the pills, which they agree to do. By his next return trip she is seemingly sober and the household is returning to some sense of normalcy while we see Martin is slowly becoming somewhat attached to the three. Lucy later reveals to Martin that Jarrah was hunting the Tiger for Red Leaf, but he decided instead to turn away from them to support the environment - which we are supposed to figure led to his demise.
Now the movie turns dark... Martin on his next trek out locates Jarrah's body (on an anonymous tip) and buries him. He also eventually locates the den of the Tiger and evidence that it is alive and still living here, but does not see the creature. Martin is soon attacked by another mercenary who was sent by Red Leaf, but Martin is able to kill him instead. Martin discovers the bad guy had been at the Armstrong house, so now he wants to conclude this "mission". He finally locates the Tasmanian Tiger, shots it and then cremates the body. Martin returns to the Armstrong house to find it was attacked and set on fire by the aforementioned mercenary (before he made his way out to the wilderness to find Martin). Lucy and Katie were killed, while Jamie escaped.
The movie ends with Martin calling Red Leaf and informing them that what they were looking for is gone forever, and that he will also be gone, too. Martin then finds Jamie at a boarding school, presumably to adopt him.
Thoughts and Recommendation:
The Hunter is more of an indie style drama than it is an action movie, even though my description of Martin cavorting about in the woods may conjure that image. The pace is somewhat slow and deliberate using the Tasmanian landscape and Martin's calculated independent tracking to fill the minutes. Martin's interactions with the Armstrongs, Mindy, and some of the locals is also very thoughtful and nuanced. The only real "action" I would point to is when the other Red Leaf mercenary shows up and he and Martin have a confrontation eventually leading to Martin shooting him in what amounts to self-defense.
This is a beautifully filmed movie, as it was actually shot in Tasmania. The scenery alone honestly made me want to travel there. It is also not often that a movie can prompt me to want to research elements, but after seeing this film, I immediately wanted to know more about the history of the Tasmanian Tiger and if there has been actual sightings.
Dafoe shines in his role; his transformation from the "loner" into a more "attached" human-being was subtle but great to watch. Neill and O'Connor despite limited screen time were both excellent choices in their supporting roles. (Sam Neill is a favorite actor of mine as it stands.)
When all is done the topics of conservation, hunting, animal extinction, human interaction, and generally the philosophy of where of each of us are in the natural world versus the technological "greedy" society we now live in - all come into light. I highly recommend it.
Awesome movie quotes: True Romance (1993)
"He must have thought it was white boy day. It ain't white boy day, is it?"
"No man... it ain't white boy day."
"No man... it ain't white boy day."
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Review: Mimic (1997)
People in the Movie: Mira Sorvino (Romy & Michele's High School Reunion), Jeremy Northam (The Invasion), Charles Dutton (Alien 3)
Director: Guillermo del Toro (Hellboy, Pan's Labyrinth)
Pigeonhole: Horror/ Sci Fi/ Thriller
On the surface: In New York City, a deadly epidemic called 'Strickler's Diesease' is killing hundreds of children. Strickler's is being spread by the large cockroach population, so entomologist Dr. Susan Tyler (Sorvino) and her husband Dr. Peter Mann (Northam) are contacted to find a way to stop the spread of the disease by means of killing the carriers. Susan and Peter very reluctantly agree to genetically engineer an insect which they call the 'Judas Breed'; it is described as a cross between a termite and a praying mantis. These predator insects are then released into the sewers and effectively stop the cockroaches. Soon no new cases of Strickler's are reported. Because Susan and Peter bred the Judas' as all female and with a genetic flaw, they die out after one generation. Ok, not really.
Three years later, strange things begin happening in and around the subways. A priest disappears from his church, and a child hears strange clicking over a several day period. Susan is brought a specimen of a large strange looking bug, which she discovers is genetically identical to the Judas Breed. Uh oh.
She and Peter proceed into the old subway tunnels, with a grumbling Metro Security officer named Leonard (Dutton), in tow. It seems nature has a surprise in wait, and the cockroaches are not the only things that the Judas Breed are going to eliminate...
Deeper down: **spoiler alert**
Mimic plays out like a monster movie, or "creature feature". No new ground is broken as far plotline -the basic premise is that the Judas bugs, of course, evolved and are now going to be predators of humans. I think the "human sized bugs" were scary looking, and did not come off like something comical or too mocked-up - which is often a problem in monster movies. While they were human sized, you could still have that "creepy crawly bug feeling" seeing them on the screen. I was very impressed with the scenery and background - being very dark, and cramped due to the fact they spend most of the movie underground either in old subway tunnels or in the sewers. Even the scenes above ground were equally gloomy, and either took place at night or shots were in the shadows. The environment del Toro created lent itself well to building tension, and made every area seem like the mimic bugs were just waiting to attack.
Where the light broke through:
- The previously noted creature effects and environments make this worth seeing, right away. While I often criticize Hollywood for having way too many movies take place in New York City or Los Angeles, this time it really works well to be in subterranean New York. Seeing the bugs in their different stages of their life cycle, and when they were in their human-like mimic forms was very hair raising to see. I give these points very high marks.
- I thought the leads were all good in their roles. I think Sorvino did a great mixing the "tough scientist" with a vulnerable, human side. She was also hesitant about messing with nature when creating the Judas bug, so there was no arrogance on her part thinking there could not be repercussions. No one came off like the superhero, either, which I really appreciated. There can be a tendency for Alpha-type character to try to save the day in monster movies.
- The tension rose and fell at a good pace. Scary scenes were scary - meaning there were no one-liners, or comic relief that threw off the balance. (Other than the ending, which I will get to, below.)
What was sewer-rific:
- The Judas bugs seems to be both hyper-intelligent (e.g. capturing and not killing Susan and a child at different points; or stalking different characters throughout), but then can be fooled by their own scent glands and secretions? I have no problem with any single one of these elements, but taken all together it seems almost contradictory that these predatory creatures could behave in near human-like ways, as well as their apparent blood lust, yet be "fooled" by something so "basic".
- Susan and Peter seem to quickly arrive at the conclusion that "there is only one fertile male in the colony" of the mimics (which we are led to from the prior information that their original breeding was done from termites). Wait a second - isn't the whole point of reaching the stages of chaos they were at in the film because of mutation and evolution? This dialogue just seemed like horror movie stupidity to me, especially because these are two doctors who are witnessing first hand what "should not be happening" based on how they engineered the Judas Breed in the first place, which was supposed to have died after one generation. I also considered it highly short-sighted for them to have concluded that there was only the one colony there in the subways and sewers, so they believed they should only be looking for one male to kill.
- The ending seemed too "easy" for me to reconcile. Peter finds the nest somewhat near where all the prior action had taken place, and it's conveniently equipped with gas line to rupture and ignite, so he can kill all the other mimics, who are all now supposedly in one place (minus the "king" who Susan gets to kill). Based on how the whole rest of the film went, this just seemed like a cop out, or a quick way to try to tie off the action with the easiest possible answer. This fact takes Mimic from being a great film, down to just a good film, in my opinion.
Recommendation: See it for some great cinematography, decent story, and for Mira Sorvino's part. Multiple tense moments are enough to override the slow-down points and not-so-great end. 'R' rating is for creature/horror gore, violence and language.
*I have not seen the extended director's cut as of this date, so I do not know if anything significant was added.
Extras:
- There are 2 direct-to-video sequels.
- One ending, possibly the original ending, reportedly has Susan and the child make it back into the subway only to see that all the commuters looked like the mimics in the "Long John" human form. Unfortunately it did not test well, so the happier ending was used. Too bad.
Director: Guillermo del Toro (Hellboy, Pan's Labyrinth)
Pigeonhole: Horror/ Sci Fi/ Thriller
On the surface: In New York City, a deadly epidemic called 'Strickler's Diesease' is killing hundreds of children. Strickler's is being spread by the large cockroach population, so entomologist Dr. Susan Tyler (Sorvino) and her husband Dr. Peter Mann (Northam) are contacted to find a way to stop the spread of the disease by means of killing the carriers. Susan and Peter very reluctantly agree to genetically engineer an insect which they call the 'Judas Breed'; it is described as a cross between a termite and a praying mantis. These predator insects are then released into the sewers and effectively stop the cockroaches. Soon no new cases of Strickler's are reported. Because Susan and Peter bred the Judas' as all female and with a genetic flaw, they die out after one generation. Ok, not really.
Three years later, strange things begin happening in and around the subways. A priest disappears from his church, and a child hears strange clicking over a several day period. Susan is brought a specimen of a large strange looking bug, which she discovers is genetically identical to the Judas Breed. Uh oh.
She and Peter proceed into the old subway tunnels, with a grumbling Metro Security officer named Leonard (Dutton), in tow. It seems nature has a surprise in wait, and the cockroaches are not the only things that the Judas Breed are going to eliminate...
Deeper down: **spoiler alert**
Mimic plays out like a monster movie, or "creature feature". No new ground is broken as far plotline -the basic premise is that the Judas bugs, of course, evolved and are now going to be predators of humans. I think the "human sized bugs" were scary looking, and did not come off like something comical or too mocked-up - which is often a problem in monster movies. While they were human sized, you could still have that "creepy crawly bug feeling" seeing them on the screen. I was very impressed with the scenery and background - being very dark, and cramped due to the fact they spend most of the movie underground either in old subway tunnels or in the sewers. Even the scenes above ground were equally gloomy, and either took place at night or shots were in the shadows. The environment del Toro created lent itself well to building tension, and made every area seem like the mimic bugs were just waiting to attack.
Where the light broke through:
- The previously noted creature effects and environments make this worth seeing, right away. While I often criticize Hollywood for having way too many movies take place in New York City or Los Angeles, this time it really works well to be in subterranean New York. Seeing the bugs in their different stages of their life cycle, and when they were in their human-like mimic forms was very hair raising to see. I give these points very high marks.
- I thought the leads were all good in their roles. I think Sorvino did a great mixing the "tough scientist" with a vulnerable, human side. She was also hesitant about messing with nature when creating the Judas bug, so there was no arrogance on her part thinking there could not be repercussions. No one came off like the superhero, either, which I really appreciated. There can be a tendency for Alpha-type character to try to save the day in monster movies.
- The tension rose and fell at a good pace. Scary scenes were scary - meaning there were no one-liners, or comic relief that threw off the balance. (Other than the ending, which I will get to, below.)
What was sewer-rific:
- The Judas bugs seems to be both hyper-intelligent (e.g. capturing and not killing Susan and a child at different points; or stalking different characters throughout), but then can be fooled by their own scent glands and secretions? I have no problem with any single one of these elements, but taken all together it seems almost contradictory that these predatory creatures could behave in near human-like ways, as well as their apparent blood lust, yet be "fooled" by something so "basic".
- Susan and Peter seem to quickly arrive at the conclusion that "there is only one fertile male in the colony" of the mimics (which we are led to from the prior information that their original breeding was done from termites). Wait a second - isn't the whole point of reaching the stages of chaos they were at in the film because of mutation and evolution? This dialogue just seemed like horror movie stupidity to me, especially because these are two doctors who are witnessing first hand what "should not be happening" based on how they engineered the Judas Breed in the first place, which was supposed to have died after one generation. I also considered it highly short-sighted for them to have concluded that there was only the one colony there in the subways and sewers, so they believed they should only be looking for one male to kill.
- The ending seemed too "easy" for me to reconcile. Peter finds the nest somewhat near where all the prior action had taken place, and it's conveniently equipped with gas line to rupture and ignite, so he can kill all the other mimics, who are all now supposedly in one place (minus the "king" who Susan gets to kill). Based on how the whole rest of the film went, this just seemed like a cop out, or a quick way to try to tie off the action with the easiest possible answer. This fact takes Mimic from being a great film, down to just a good film, in my opinion.
Recommendation: See it for some great cinematography, decent story, and for Mira Sorvino's part. Multiple tense moments are enough to override the slow-down points and not-so-great end. 'R' rating is for creature/horror gore, violence and language.
*I have not seen the extended director's cut as of this date, so I do not know if anything significant was added.
Extras:
- There are 2 direct-to-video sequels.
- One ending, possibly the original ending, reportedly has Susan and the child make it back into the subway only to see that all the commuters looked like the mimics in the "Long John" human form. Unfortunately it did not test well, so the happier ending was used. Too bad.
Awesome movie quotes: South Park, Bigger, Longer, and Uncut (1999)
"Yes, that's right, I saw the Terrance and Phillip movie. Now who wants to touch me? ... I SAID WHO WANTS TO FUCKING TOUCH ME!"
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Awesome movie quotes: Leon: The Professional (1994)
"Do you like Beethoven? ... You don't like Beethoven. You don't know what you're missing. Overtures like that get my... juices flowing. So powerful. But after his openings, to be honest, he does tend to get a little fucking boring. That's why I stopped."
Saturday, April 20, 2013
Awesome movie quotes: Beavis and Butthead Do America (1996)
"Bork, you're a Federal Agent. You represent the United States government. Never end a sentence with a preposition."
Awesome movie quotes: Underworld (2003)
"The war had all but ground to a halt in the blink of an eye. Lucian, the most feared and ruthless leader ever to rule the Lycan clan, had finally been killed. The Lycan horde scattered to the wind in a single evening of flame and retribution. Victory, it seemed, was in our grasp, the very birthright of the vampires. Nearly six centuries had passed since that night, yet the ancient feud proved unwilling to follow Lucian to the grave. Though Lycans were fewer in number, the war itself had become more perilous, for the moon no longer held her sway. Older, more powerful Lycans, were now able to change at will. The weapons had evolved, but our orders remained the same: Hunt them down and kill them off, one by one. A most successful campaign. Perhaps too successful. For those like me, a Death Dealer, this signaled the end of an era. Like the weapons of the previous century, we, too, would become obsolete. Pity, because I lived for it."
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Bob's Review: V/H/S (2012)
Genre/Tags - Horror, pov, “found footage,” anthology
The Basics
A group of low lives are hired to break into an old man’s house and steal a rare video tape from his collection. When they enter the house, they find the old man dead, his body seated in front of a multi screen television display. With each video tape that is played by the thieves, we are shown a new and different event of horror and death.
My Recommendation
I would recommend this one for any and all fans of good horror. The R rating is for adult language, graphic violence, nudity, strong sexuality, and some drug use.
My Two Cents
I’ll start by saying that film “trends” kind of annoy me at times. For example, two of the biggest box office releases of 2001 were Harry Potter 1 and Fellowship of the Ring. The decade that followed saw Hollywood suddenly scramble to the bookstore for more block buster hits, and what we got was a slew of mediocre to poor quality movies based on books like Peter Pan, A Series of Unfortunate Events, Narnia, and led to the ultimate cultural disaster of my lifetime, Twilight.
Sadly, the world of horror is not immune to this cycle of trends. Sometimes slashers are the “in” thing, sometimes vampires, then zombies, or ghosts, or demon possession, but for some reason, werewolves have yet to become popular. The rising trend now is the pov horror movie which attempt to put the viewer right in the “heart of the fear” using hand held cameras to film the sequence of events through the characters’ points of view. The most widely known of these films are The Blair Witch Project and the Paranormal Activity series.
Out of all the pov horror films I’ve seen (not all of them, but a good number) V/H/S is the one that I would recommend the highest. For one thing, most, if not all, pov movies I’ve seen are slow to build, meaning you have to sit through a half hour of boring before the frightmare begins. The first shot of this movie is footage of the thieves harassing an unsuspecting bystander. So, instead of watching a half an hour of staged home movies, the film jumps right into it.
Also, this is the only pov horror film I have seen with any level of violence or gore, both of which this movie contains. I’m not saying these things are necessary for good horror, but with the number of pov films out there, one would think that the ratio of violent to non-violent selections would be somewhat more even. And some of the segments are more violent than the others, so there are parts of the film that will satisfy those that prefer visceral terror over carnage.
One “trick” that is used in pov horror, particularly the Paranormal Activity movies, is what I call the ambient scare. This is where loud and sudden sounds come through the surround system giving the illusion that the sound came from behind the viewer. I think this is very cool, but it is something that home viewers will miss out on if they do not have a sound system with 5.1 digital surround. And even then, this is not going to give you quite the same effect as it does in the theater, unless you turn your system way loud which tends to upset the neighbors. This film doesn’t rely on this effect, especially since the povs are on video tape rather than digital means, which gives the movie at least a little bit of believability.
The thing that makes the movie stand out in my mind is the fact that it is an anthology style movie. It’s interesting to see the work of different writers and directors side by side in the same movie and see what they do with the time slot they are given to work with. Also being a fan of different styles of horror, I enjoyed seeing multiple styles in one film.
Sure to satisfy any horror fan out there, this is a prime example of what can be done in the pov style.
Ratings
Story: Very Good. The foreground story was a bit generic, but all the footage stories were well written and executed.
Cast Performance: Good. Pov tend to work better with a cast of unknowns.
Violence/Gore: Heavy. Some of the segments are bloodier than others.
Nudity: Moderate/heavy. The total screen time with nudity is low, but there is a full frontal shot. Ambiance/music: Good. About what one would expect watching pov.
Overall Rating: 4.5/5
The Basics
A group of low lives are hired to break into an old man’s house and steal a rare video tape from his collection. When they enter the house, they find the old man dead, his body seated in front of a multi screen television display. With each video tape that is played by the thieves, we are shown a new and different event of horror and death.
My RecommendationI would recommend this one for any and all fans of good horror. The R rating is for adult language, graphic violence, nudity, strong sexuality, and some drug use.
My Two Cents
I’ll start by saying that film “trends” kind of annoy me at times. For example, two of the biggest box office releases of 2001 were Harry Potter 1 and Fellowship of the Ring. The decade that followed saw Hollywood suddenly scramble to the bookstore for more block buster hits, and what we got was a slew of mediocre to poor quality movies based on books like Peter Pan, A Series of Unfortunate Events, Narnia, and led to the ultimate cultural disaster of my lifetime, Twilight.
Sadly, the world of horror is not immune to this cycle of trends. Sometimes slashers are the “in” thing, sometimes vampires, then zombies, or ghosts, or demon possession, but for some reason, werewolves have yet to become popular. The rising trend now is the pov horror movie which attempt to put the viewer right in the “heart of the fear” using hand held cameras to film the sequence of events through the characters’ points of view. The most widely known of these films are The Blair Witch Project and the Paranormal Activity series.
Out of all the pov horror films I’ve seen (not all of them, but a good number) V/H/S is the one that I would recommend the highest. For one thing, most, if not all, pov movies I’ve seen are slow to build, meaning you have to sit through a half hour of boring before the frightmare begins. The first shot of this movie is footage of the thieves harassing an unsuspecting bystander. So, instead of watching a half an hour of staged home movies, the film jumps right into it.
Also, this is the only pov horror film I have seen with any level of violence or gore, both of which this movie contains. I’m not saying these things are necessary for good horror, but with the number of pov films out there, one would think that the ratio of violent to non-violent selections would be somewhat more even. And some of the segments are more violent than the others, so there are parts of the film that will satisfy those that prefer visceral terror over carnage.
One “trick” that is used in pov horror, particularly the Paranormal Activity movies, is what I call the ambient scare. This is where loud and sudden sounds come through the surround system giving the illusion that the sound came from behind the viewer. I think this is very cool, but it is something that home viewers will miss out on if they do not have a sound system with 5.1 digital surround. And even then, this is not going to give you quite the same effect as it does in the theater, unless you turn your system way loud which tends to upset the neighbors. This film doesn’t rely on this effect, especially since the povs are on video tape rather than digital means, which gives the movie at least a little bit of believability.
The thing that makes the movie stand out in my mind is the fact that it is an anthology style movie. It’s interesting to see the work of different writers and directors side by side in the same movie and see what they do with the time slot they are given to work with. Also being a fan of different styles of horror, I enjoyed seeing multiple styles in one film.
Sure to satisfy any horror fan out there, this is a prime example of what can be done in the pov style.
Ratings
Story: Very Good. The foreground story was a bit generic, but all the footage stories were well written and executed.
Cast Performance: Good. Pov tend to work better with a cast of unknowns.
Violence/Gore: Heavy. Some of the segments are bloodier than others.
Nudity: Moderate/heavy. The total screen time with nudity is low, but there is a full frontal shot. Ambiance/music: Good. About what one would expect watching pov.
Overall Rating: 4.5/5
Awesome movie quotes: The Karate Kid (1984)
"We do not train to be merciful here. Mercy is for the weak. Here, in the streets, in competition: A man confronts you, he is the enemy. An enemy deserves no mercy."
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Quick Look: Grave Encounters 2 (2012)
Grave Encounters 2 is a direct sequel to the 2011 film Grave Encounters. Like the original, it is presented as a found-footage/ point of view (POV) style horror movie. It was written by the original creators, the Vicious Brothers (Collin Minihan and Stuart Ortiz) and directed by John Poliquin. It is not rated (NR), but I would consider like an 'R' for language, violence, intense supernatural moments, and brief nudity.
Albert Einstein once described insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result". While I would not call GE2 an exact duplicate of the first installment, I do not feel there was a large enough separation to take this new story in a direction to truly make it its own film. But, I will say that if you want to consider it an 'extension' of the first GE, then GE2 could seem just a hair better than a sad-sack attempt to get a money making sequel produced and out on the market.
**spoiler alert** This movie opens with a bunch of hack video-bloggers giving their reviews of Grave Encounters, one of which is Alex (Richard Harmon), a film student. Alex and his roommate Trevor (Dylan Playfair) come off as the typical hard partying sort, who appear to live their lives through shooting video clips via camera, cell phones, or recording video logs. The audience sees Alex is involved in filming a couple sequences for some horror films he is directing for film school, although he noticeably detached from the action on the sets.
Alex begins receiving emails suggesting that Grave Encounters was, in fact, "real" and he quickly becomes obsessed with the idea of making a film about what really happened. After getting in contact with Sean Rogerson's mom (Sean played Lance in the first film) and speaking with the Producer of the original movie, Jerry Hartfield, Alex, and 4 of his friends (Trevor, another cameraman, and 2 girls), proceed to up to the abandoned psychiatric hospital we saw in Grave Enoucnters.
The horrors that consumed the prior film crew are lying in wait for this new group of victims. Interestingly, Sean Rogerson is found to be still alive, but appears to be in a semi-psychotic state from the supernatural forces that lobotomized him, and that still control the hospital. When all is said done, Alex is the sole survivor with Grave Encounters 2 to his "credit".
What went right:
- There was hardly any fluff and there was no "waiting around" like the prior film, to build any tension. Literally every moment seemed to be moving along either from action, or transition into action.
- The shots of the ghosts held a little longer in duration, which I liked. There was also introduction of a female child ghost from a children's ward that was not shown in the prior film. It added a little bit of creepiness.
- This film actually built on the "black magic" element that I had criticized from the prior film. Sean explains to Alex that Dr. Friedkin had opened a link or bridge between the real world and the supernatural world, which is why the spirits are roaming free and the hospital appears to be an entity, or a character, itself. I actually consider this element to be the most redeeming of the entire movie.
- The special effects overall were decent, but obviously nothing felt "new" as far as the asylum went, just revisited.
- There were a few good "jump" moments, were the action and scenes did create some minor scares.
What was not-so-great:
- Normally the jump cuts with the POV style films doesn't bother me, because they make the overall feel of the film appear more "authentic", if you will. But there were so many sequences in GE2, it felt like every few seconds was another jump cut, and it made the flow of this movie feel schizophrenic.
- Jennifer Parker (Leanne Lapp) was a good character and was developed as well as any of the characters in the film, but once inside the hospital she seemed to be whining and whimpering, constantly. Annoyingly so. I do not know if the actor was given the room to improvise this, or if the director had her in this state of distress - but in my opinion, it hurt the on screen product.
- Alex was not that likable as a lead character. I felt no attachment to him, so despite him driving the plot, I was not really concerned whether he lived or died. By contrast, I felt that Sean actually carried the plot more than Alex once it was discovered he was still alive.
- I get the idea that Sean had lost his mind; he had been stuck in this supernatural labyrinth for what was equated to nine years. But he kills Trevor on supposed orders from the "house", but then he is later sucked into a black hole that the house "creates" as Sean attempts to escape. Using Sean versus the "haunted house" in this manner seemed shaky at best. I could not tell if we were supposed to believe Sean was a victim of the supernatural forces, or if he was just crazy. The direction and on-screen product kind of came off like both elements were valid, but the uncertainty takes my liking of GE2 down a few notches.
Recommendation: If you watched Grave Encounters, then you should probably give this once over, since it expands the original story. As a standalone, however, this film would make little to no sense.
There are enough good elements (good looking ghost figures, decent moving story) to outweigh the cliche sequel moments. I would not be surprised if a Grave Encounters 3 pops up in the future.
Albert Einstein once described insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result". While I would not call GE2 an exact duplicate of the first installment, I do not feel there was a large enough separation to take this new story in a direction to truly make it its own film. But, I will say that if you want to consider it an 'extension' of the first GE, then GE2 could seem just a hair better than a sad-sack attempt to get a money making sequel produced and out on the market.
**spoiler alert** This movie opens with a bunch of hack video-bloggers giving their reviews of Grave Encounters, one of which is Alex (Richard Harmon), a film student. Alex and his roommate Trevor (Dylan Playfair) come off as the typical hard partying sort, who appear to live their lives through shooting video clips via camera, cell phones, or recording video logs. The audience sees Alex is involved in filming a couple sequences for some horror films he is directing for film school, although he noticeably detached from the action on the sets.
Alex begins receiving emails suggesting that Grave Encounters was, in fact, "real" and he quickly becomes obsessed with the idea of making a film about what really happened. After getting in contact with Sean Rogerson's mom (Sean played Lance in the first film) and speaking with the Producer of the original movie, Jerry Hartfield, Alex, and 4 of his friends (Trevor, another cameraman, and 2 girls), proceed to up to the abandoned psychiatric hospital we saw in Grave Enoucnters.
The horrors that consumed the prior film crew are lying in wait for this new group of victims. Interestingly, Sean Rogerson is found to be still alive, but appears to be in a semi-psychotic state from the supernatural forces that lobotomized him, and that still control the hospital. When all is said done, Alex is the sole survivor with Grave Encounters 2 to his "credit".
What went right:- There was hardly any fluff and there was no "waiting around" like the prior film, to build any tension. Literally every moment seemed to be moving along either from action, or transition into action.
- The shots of the ghosts held a little longer in duration, which I liked. There was also introduction of a female child ghost from a children's ward that was not shown in the prior film. It added a little bit of creepiness.
- This film actually built on the "black magic" element that I had criticized from the prior film. Sean explains to Alex that Dr. Friedkin had opened a link or bridge between the real world and the supernatural world, which is why the spirits are roaming free and the hospital appears to be an entity, or a character, itself. I actually consider this element to be the most redeeming of the entire movie.
- The special effects overall were decent, but obviously nothing felt "new" as far as the asylum went, just revisited.
- There were a few good "jump" moments, were the action and scenes did create some minor scares.
What was not-so-great:
- Normally the jump cuts with the POV style films doesn't bother me, because they make the overall feel of the film appear more "authentic", if you will. But there were so many sequences in GE2, it felt like every few seconds was another jump cut, and it made the flow of this movie feel schizophrenic.
- Jennifer Parker (Leanne Lapp) was a good character and was developed as well as any of the characters in the film, but once inside the hospital she seemed to be whining and whimpering, constantly. Annoyingly so. I do not know if the actor was given the room to improvise this, or if the director had her in this state of distress - but in my opinion, it hurt the on screen product.
- Alex was not that likable as a lead character. I felt no attachment to him, so despite him driving the plot, I was not really concerned whether he lived or died. By contrast, I felt that Sean actually carried the plot more than Alex once it was discovered he was still alive.
- I get the idea that Sean had lost his mind; he had been stuck in this supernatural labyrinth for what was equated to nine years. But he kills Trevor on supposed orders from the "house", but then he is later sucked into a black hole that the house "creates" as Sean attempts to escape. Using Sean versus the "haunted house" in this manner seemed shaky at best. I could not tell if we were supposed to believe Sean was a victim of the supernatural forces, or if he was just crazy. The direction and on-screen product kind of came off like both elements were valid, but the uncertainty takes my liking of GE2 down a few notches.
Recommendation: If you watched Grave Encounters, then you should probably give this once over, since it expands the original story. As a standalone, however, this film would make little to no sense.
There are enough good elements (good looking ghost figures, decent moving story) to outweigh the cliche sequel moments. I would not be surprised if a Grave Encounters 3 pops up in the future.
Sunday, April 7, 2013
Awesome movie quotes: Gone in 60 Seconds (2000)
".. so check out my new move. I call it "the stranger". What I do is, I sit on my hand for like 15-20 minutes, until it goes numb. No feeling at all. And then, I rub one out."
Friday, April 5, 2013
R.I.P. Roger Ebert
Whether you liked his opinions or not, at least after reading a review of his, or listening to him review a movie, you knew what he thought about it.
That fact alone is why I chose to write this blog in the first place; because too many times I would read a random movie review (not one of his) and think to myself "Ok, so what the hell did I just read, and I do I want to actually want to watch this movie?" With Ebert (and Siskel, too), I could tell - even if I totally disagreed with his review - whether or not I would want to see said movie, and that, I respected very much. I always attempt to bring that one element to my reviews - should you go see this film.
There are people who are gifted writers, and Ebert's weaving of words was excellent. I will miss his blogs and articles, as well as some of his political commentary.
That fact alone is why I chose to write this blog in the first place; because too many times I would read a random movie review (not one of his) and think to myself "Ok, so what the hell did I just read, and I do I want to actually want to watch this movie?" With Ebert (and Siskel, too), I could tell - even if I totally disagreed with his review - whether or not I would want to see said movie, and that, I respected very much. I always attempt to bring that one element to my reviews - should you go see this film.
There are people who are gifted writers, and Ebert's weaving of words was excellent. I will miss his blogs and articles, as well as some of his political commentary.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Quick Look: Lucas (1986)
People in the Movie: Corey Haim (The Lost Boys, License to Drive), Charlie Sheen (Major League, Hot Shots), Kerri Green (The Goonies), Winona Ryder (Edward Scissorhands, Heathers), Courtney Thorne-Smith (TV's Melrose Place, TV's Ally McBeal), Jeremy Piven (PCU, TV's Entourage)
Director: David Seltzer
Pigeonhole: High School Drama / Coming of Age / Teen Romance
The Plot: **spoiler alert** Lucas (Haim) is a nerdy 14 year old tweener who meets Maggie (Green) when she moves into the neighborhood, in the summer. Maggie is at least a year or two older than Lucas, but despite this age separation, they become fast friends and hang out constantly until school starts. The audience sees that Lucas' feelings for Maggie are a little deeper than friendship, although Maggie seems oblivious.
At school Lucas seems to be on the receiving end of taunts and bullying, mostly at the hands of two football players named Bruno and Spike (Piven), despite his friendship with the football team's quarterback, Cappie (Sheen). Maggie quickly develops a crush on Cappie and joins the cheerleading squad to be closer to him, much to the chagrin of Cappie's girlfriend Alise (Thorne-Smith). Lucas gets upset that Maggie is no longer spending lots of time with him and becomes jealous of her growing attraction to Cappie. Lucas later embarrasses himself further by assuming Maggie will "automatically" go with him to an upcoming school dance - only for us to later witness Maggie and Cappie kiss that same night while Lucas looks on. In the periphery of this heartbreaking scene we see one of Lucas' friends named Rina (Ryder) giving Lucas advice, and that she has feeling for Lucas - but Lucas is oblivious to this, much as Maggie is oblivious to his feelings.
In a final desperate attempt to win Maggie's affections, Lucas suits up to play football and heads out onto the field in the middle of a game, only to get a head injury, mainly because the equipment was too big for him. At the conclusion on the film, Lucas and Maggie agree to reconcile their friendship, and Lucas earns the respect of his previous tormentors.
My Thoughts: Lucas is an oft-overlooked 80's film that not only had a sizable cast of future stars, but may be one of Corey Haim's best dramatic performances. It is very much a feel good movie, but where Lucas breaks down for me was the complete lack of comic moments that usually are found in the high school romantic films. It seems that Lucas is meant to be the lovable loser, and that his station is created by his own foolish choices - albeit from a first "crush". I think Haim did an outstanding job in the lead role and was very believable, especially in his moments of letdown. Another strange reveal for me was after Lucas was injured at the football game (and in the hospital at this point), Rina tells Maggie and Cappie that Lucas lived in the trailer park and that his dad was basically "not around", likely due to alcoholism. I am not sure if this was meant to have us, the audience, feel more sympathy for Lucas, or if it was meant to highlight the fact that Lucas' supposed friends really were not, in fact, his friends. Either way, this element felt a little melancholy to me, and really brought the mood down a notch.
I am glad the movie was able to come full circle, but had this film be able to incorporate a few more light or comic moments, it could have easily joined Sixteen Candles or Just One of the Guys as an excellent 80's high school movie.
Extras:
- The movie was originally going to be produced as an 'R' rated film. I cannot figure out where the 'R' rating would have come from, other than language, because none of the subject matter really lends itself to an 'R' rating.
Director: David Seltzer
Pigeonhole: High School Drama / Coming of Age / Teen Romance
The Plot: **spoiler alert** Lucas (Haim) is a nerdy 14 year old tweener who meets Maggie (Green) when she moves into the neighborhood, in the summer. Maggie is at least a year or two older than Lucas, but despite this age separation, they become fast friends and hang out constantly until school starts. The audience sees that Lucas' feelings for Maggie are a little deeper than friendship, although Maggie seems oblivious.
At school Lucas seems to be on the receiving end of taunts and bullying, mostly at the hands of two football players named Bruno and Spike (Piven), despite his friendship with the football team's quarterback, Cappie (Sheen). Maggie quickly develops a crush on Cappie and joins the cheerleading squad to be closer to him, much to the chagrin of Cappie's girlfriend Alise (Thorne-Smith). Lucas gets upset that Maggie is no longer spending lots of time with him and becomes jealous of her growing attraction to Cappie. Lucas later embarrasses himself further by assuming Maggie will "automatically" go with him to an upcoming school dance - only for us to later witness Maggie and Cappie kiss that same night while Lucas looks on. In the periphery of this heartbreaking scene we see one of Lucas' friends named Rina (Ryder) giving Lucas advice, and that she has feeling for Lucas - but Lucas is oblivious to this, much as Maggie is oblivious to his feelings.
In a final desperate attempt to win Maggie's affections, Lucas suits up to play football and heads out onto the field in the middle of a game, only to get a head injury, mainly because the equipment was too big for him. At the conclusion on the film, Lucas and Maggie agree to reconcile their friendship, and Lucas earns the respect of his previous tormentors.
My Thoughts: Lucas is an oft-overlooked 80's film that not only had a sizable cast of future stars, but may be one of Corey Haim's best dramatic performances. It is very much a feel good movie, but where Lucas breaks down for me was the complete lack of comic moments that usually are found in the high school romantic films. It seems that Lucas is meant to be the lovable loser, and that his station is created by his own foolish choices - albeit from a first "crush". I think Haim did an outstanding job in the lead role and was very believable, especially in his moments of letdown. Another strange reveal for me was after Lucas was injured at the football game (and in the hospital at this point), Rina tells Maggie and Cappie that Lucas lived in the trailer park and that his dad was basically "not around", likely due to alcoholism. I am not sure if this was meant to have us, the audience, feel more sympathy for Lucas, or if it was meant to highlight the fact that Lucas' supposed friends really were not, in fact, his friends. Either way, this element felt a little melancholy to me, and really brought the mood down a notch.
I am glad the movie was able to come full circle, but had this film be able to incorporate a few more light or comic moments, it could have easily joined Sixteen Candles or Just One of the Guys as an excellent 80's high school movie.
Extras:
- The movie was originally going to be produced as an 'R' rated film. I cannot figure out where the 'R' rating would have come from, other than language, because none of the subject matter really lends itself to an 'R' rating.
Monday, April 1, 2013
Another Karate Kid? Say it ain't so ...
Because we loved Ralph Macchio, Hilary Swank, and Jaden Smith learning to stand up for themselves so much - another Karate Kid-like sequel is coming.
Here's what I learned:
A bullied 8th grade kid discovers that a creepy old man living in the neighborhood is actually an ex-special forces, ninja trained warrior. We see the man and child becoming uncomfortably close, while in training, and that there seems to be no parental figure in the child's life to prevent this.
Now ready to stand up to the bullies, the child unleashes a fury of stealth attacks leaving a trail of 5 dead bodies. The victim now becomes the attacker and is the new power broker at school.
With no evidence to tie the child to the crimes, the police are left to wonder...
The old man smiles.
April Fools Day - this is entirely ficticious.
Here's what I learned:
A bullied 8th grade kid discovers that a creepy old man living in the neighborhood is actually an ex-special forces, ninja trained warrior. We see the man and child becoming uncomfortably close, while in training, and that there seems to be no parental figure in the child's life to prevent this.
Now ready to stand up to the bullies, the child unleashes a fury of stealth attacks leaving a trail of 5 dead bodies. The victim now becomes the attacker and is the new power broker at school.
With no evidence to tie the child to the crimes, the police are left to wonder...
The old man smiles.
April Fools Day - this is entirely ficticious.
A new horror/ POV movie coming soon, Take 2
The internet is abuzz about the new film called 'Take 2'.
Like many of the recent horror / POV/ found footage style films that have recently flooded the genre, this film tries to take a slightly new approach:
A group of college film students with handheld cameras is secretly following a group of film interns who are researching and filming a supposed haunting on an old abandoned reality TV location.
Finding nothing, the interns decide to smoke some of the local herbs and turn into zombies. They find and eat the film students (who thought it was all a joke), then eat themselves.
The footage is found a year later.
April Fool's Day - this is completely ficticious
Like many of the recent horror / POV/ found footage style films that have recently flooded the genre, this film tries to take a slightly new approach:
A group of college film students with handheld cameras is secretly following a group of film interns who are researching and filming a supposed haunting on an old abandoned reality TV location.
Finding nothing, the interns decide to smoke some of the local herbs and turn into zombies. They find and eat the film students (who thought it was all a joke), then eat themselves.
The footage is found a year later.
April Fool's Day - this is completely ficticious
Go back and check out those childhood and teen favorites...
I have noticed that favorite movies from my childhood, and even my early teen years look and seem very different to me now. I would not say my taste in movies has changed, but that elements I may have looked for or ignored in the past are now blindingly obvious or absent, causing me to have a change of heart about my approval of said film.
If it has been over 5 years since you watched a "favorite movie" of yours from years past - watch it again now and see what you think.
Is it still as scary/ funny/ emotional/ exciting/ deep/ or entertaining as when you first watched it?
You may be surprised.
If it has been over 5 years since you watched a "favorite movie" of yours from years past - watch it again now and see what you think.
Is it still as scary/ funny/ emotional/ exciting/ deep/ or entertaining as when you first watched it?
You may be surprised.
Future Release: The New Friday the 13th?
I just received word of the new plot for an upcoming Friday the 13th installment:
Concerned about Jason's murderous tendencies, a group of friends decides to hold an intervention at Crystal Lake, convincing Jason to "lay down the machete". At first Jason agrees realizing the error of his ways for the past 30+ years of murders, but when later asked to consider "taking off the hockey mask", Jason becomes incensed, kills the group of hippies and then their families.
April Fools Day - this is entirely fictitious.
Concerned about Jason's murderous tendencies, a group of friends decides to hold an intervention at Crystal Lake, convincing Jason to "lay down the machete". At first Jason agrees realizing the error of his ways for the past 30+ years of murders, but when later asked to consider "taking off the hockey mask", Jason becomes incensed, kills the group of hippies and then their families.
April Fools Day - this is entirely fictitious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)