Sunday, September 29, 2013
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Review: Flowers in the Attic (1987)
Principal cast: Louise Fletcher, Victoria Tennant, Kristy Swanson, Jeb Stuart Adams
Director: Jeffrey Bloom
Tags: Drama, Mystery, Thriller
The Basics: Based on the novel by V.C. Andrews, the film tells the story of four children (two teenagers and two pre-school aged kids) who are brought to their mother’s family estate after the tragic loss of their father. From day one the children receive nothing but hostility and hatred from their tyrannical, Bible beating grandmother who lock the four children into a single bedroom with access to a large attic. Locked away and hidden from the world, the children are captive to a grandmother who hates them for a sin they did not commit, and a mother who slowly disappears from their lives. The older of the children plot their escape; at first to find their lost mother, but the struggle for freedom becomes a fight for survival.
Recommendation: This is a dark family drama with elements of mystery, psychological thriller, and claustrophobic suspense; and fans of these styles should appreciate this film. Fans of V.C. Andrews’ novel will enjoy this movie as well.
My Two Cents *Spoiler Alert* For the most part, this film stays true to the source novel, taking only a few, yet substantial liberties, with the story (which we’ll get to shortly.) It starts off by showing the quaint yet happy all American life of the Dollanganger family, and in the next heartbeat, the lives of the main characters are derailed when the father is killed in an auto accident, forcing the mother and her four children to seek refuge with the grandmother, which turns out to be the veritable gates of Hell for the siblings. So, the film wastes no time in thickening the plot, and as soon as the tension is introduced, it never lets up. As soon as the viewer begins to catch their breath, something else happens to tighten the atmosphere and keep the tension going. And, unlike many thrillers of today, there are no cheap, superlative jump scares or false alarms to give any semblance of reassurance. It isn't made clear as to how until later in the film, but from the moment the four kids enter their bedroom prison, the audience just knows their lives are in danger.
The casting for this movie was as close to perfect as one is going to get. Louise Fletcher is downright frightening in her role as the hateful, Bible armed grandmother. Her physically overpowering and hostile stage presence fit the character so perfectly that one could believe she walked right out of the pages of the novel onto the screen. Victoria Tennant also does a very good job as Corrine, especially in the way she portrays the evolution of her character from token housewife and mother to a murderous, self-serving upper class socialite. Both Kristy Swanson and Jeb Stuart Adams do a wonderful job in showing how their respective characters grow from naïve and optimistic children into broken hearted young adults who have to fight for their own survival as well as their younger siblings. And, Ben Ganger and Lindsay Parker perfectly fit into the rolls of the young twins: the powerfully loud Carrie and the adorably sweet Cory. It’s impossible not to melt when little Cory, stricken with illness looks up and quietly utters, “Hello John” as his last words on Earth.
As I said, there were some liberties taken from the novel in making this film; some of which are understandable, some not so much. Number one; in the novel, the children were locked away in the room and attic for over three years, while in the film, the time frame is closer to one year. I can imagine that this was done to accommodate the fact that the film would be shot over a period of months rather than years; and while older actors could pull off the growth from 14 to 17, it would be harder to pull off a growth from five to eight in that time frame. That could be a reason, but in the novel, Carrie and Cory barely grew in their seclusion because they had barely any exposure to sunlight and fresh air, and their diet was far from balanced. I could see this as not an easy decision to make, especially when considering the audiences that have not read the book.
The second element that was changed for the film was the relationship between the older children. In the novel, Christopher and Cathy grow into physical, emotional; intellectual, and most importantly, sexual maturity during their time in the attic; but their captivity and the abuse they suffer has it’s effect on this growth. In a way, the Dollanganger children have become a sort of family unit with the older children becoming parents to the younger twins. This, coupled with their fight for survival causes a sexual link between the two which leads to a climactic act of incest. Their fight for survival and their surrogate parentage for the twins are present in the film, but the sexual aspect is left out. I can imagine this was done to keep the movie from being rated R, and while it doesn’t bother me per se, I still think this was an important plot element to show the coming of age of the two older kids and how it is twisted by the greed of their mother and the hatred of their grandmother.
To me, there was only one liberty taken from the book that has no excuse, which is the plot line and ultimate fate of Corrine, the mother. The film stays true to a point. She starts out by keeping her children a secret until her dying father forgives her for marrying her Uncle and writes her back into his will, and as soon as he passes away, they get the money and can start a new life. Throughout the story, Corrine visits her children less and less. Fearing for her life, the two older children find a way to leave the room and explore the house, only to find that their mother is living in extreme comfort and happiness while they suffer in their prison. According to the grandfather’s will, if it is discovered that Corrine had children from her marriage to her uncle, even after the grandfather passed on, she would be disinherited all over again and would have nothing, which prompts Corrine to attempt to murder her children in an attempt to keep them a secret forever. In the film, the children confront their mother during her wedding to Bart Winslow, the family lawyer, and in a tussle with Cathy, Corrine in thrown from a balcony and hanged to death with her own wedding veil. In the novel, Corrine marries Bart Winslow halfway through the story and tells her children about her wedding and their honeymoon to Europe. Bart lives with the family in their giant house, and during one of their nighttime searches, Cathy sees him sleeping in a chair and lightly kisses him as he sleeps (which becomes important in the next book of the series.) When the children leave the house in the end, the mother is very much alive. The reason for this change is a little less clear, but I can guess that it was changed to give the movie a more climactic ending. It might have also been altered to end the movie with a sense of justice; that Corrine did not win the fight and does not get the money, or her life. I still think this was a mistake seeing as how Corrine is an important presence in the second novel, which was intended to be made into a movie as well. There is a definite social commentary made by this story about the evil of wealth and the lengths some will go to in order to acquire/keep hold of their gold. It shows how the desire for riches and comfort can corrupt the human soul, and it is the innocent that will pay the price for their greed. But this is a story about a family; about death and survival, good and evil; love and hate, with both God and the devil watching.
The Breakdown
Cast Performance - Perfect. The cast shines in this film. There is not one performance that is less that great, and I almost never say that.
Violence - Mild. There is some hard slapping, including a strike against a young child.
Nudity - none. Plot elements that would have called for nudity were omitted.
Ambience/Music- Excellent. The bedroom and attic set were almost exactly as they were described in the book. The main theme of the movie is memorable and beautifully haunting.
Overall rating: 4.5/5.0
Interesting Notes
-Louise Fletcher and Kristy Swanson were both given scripts for the second book of the series, “Petals on the Wind.” The movie never went into production. Swanson described the movie as “all sex.”
-Kristy Swanson was introduced to V.C. Andrews, and the author said that she was just how she pictured Cathy.
-V.C. Andrews makes a cameo appearance in this film (she’s a old lady washing the windows.) Sadly, the author passed away before the film was released.
Director: Jeffrey Bloom
Tags: Drama, Mystery, Thriller
The Basics: Based on the novel by V.C. Andrews, the film tells the story of four children (two teenagers and two pre-school aged kids) who are brought to their mother’s family estate after the tragic loss of their father. From day one the children receive nothing but hostility and hatred from their tyrannical, Bible beating grandmother who lock the four children into a single bedroom with access to a large attic. Locked away and hidden from the world, the children are captive to a grandmother who hates them for a sin they did not commit, and a mother who slowly disappears from their lives. The older of the children plot their escape; at first to find their lost mother, but the struggle for freedom becomes a fight for survival.
Recommendation: This is a dark family drama with elements of mystery, psychological thriller, and claustrophobic suspense; and fans of these styles should appreciate this film. Fans of V.C. Andrews’ novel will enjoy this movie as well.
My Two Cents *Spoiler Alert* For the most part, this film stays true to the source novel, taking only a few, yet substantial liberties, with the story (which we’ll get to shortly.) It starts off by showing the quaint yet happy all American life of the Dollanganger family, and in the next heartbeat, the lives of the main characters are derailed when the father is killed in an auto accident, forcing the mother and her four children to seek refuge with the grandmother, which turns out to be the veritable gates of Hell for the siblings. So, the film wastes no time in thickening the plot, and as soon as the tension is introduced, it never lets up. As soon as the viewer begins to catch their breath, something else happens to tighten the atmosphere and keep the tension going. And, unlike many thrillers of today, there are no cheap, superlative jump scares or false alarms to give any semblance of reassurance. It isn't made clear as to how until later in the film, but from the moment the four kids enter their bedroom prison, the audience just knows their lives are in danger.
The casting for this movie was as close to perfect as one is going to get. Louise Fletcher is downright frightening in her role as the hateful, Bible armed grandmother. Her physically overpowering and hostile stage presence fit the character so perfectly that one could believe she walked right out of the pages of the novel onto the screen. Victoria Tennant also does a very good job as Corrine, especially in the way she portrays the evolution of her character from token housewife and mother to a murderous, self-serving upper class socialite. Both Kristy Swanson and Jeb Stuart Adams do a wonderful job in showing how their respective characters grow from naïve and optimistic children into broken hearted young adults who have to fight for their own survival as well as their younger siblings. And, Ben Ganger and Lindsay Parker perfectly fit into the rolls of the young twins: the powerfully loud Carrie and the adorably sweet Cory. It’s impossible not to melt when little Cory, stricken with illness looks up and quietly utters, “Hello John” as his last words on Earth.
As I said, there were some liberties taken from the novel in making this film; some of which are understandable, some not so much. Number one; in the novel, the children were locked away in the room and attic for over three years, while in the film, the time frame is closer to one year. I can imagine that this was done to accommodate the fact that the film would be shot over a period of months rather than years; and while older actors could pull off the growth from 14 to 17, it would be harder to pull off a growth from five to eight in that time frame. That could be a reason, but in the novel, Carrie and Cory barely grew in their seclusion because they had barely any exposure to sunlight and fresh air, and their diet was far from balanced. I could see this as not an easy decision to make, especially when considering the audiences that have not read the book.
The second element that was changed for the film was the relationship between the older children. In the novel, Christopher and Cathy grow into physical, emotional; intellectual, and most importantly, sexual maturity during their time in the attic; but their captivity and the abuse they suffer has it’s effect on this growth. In a way, the Dollanganger children have become a sort of family unit with the older children becoming parents to the younger twins. This, coupled with their fight for survival causes a sexual link between the two which leads to a climactic act of incest. Their fight for survival and their surrogate parentage for the twins are present in the film, but the sexual aspect is left out. I can imagine this was done to keep the movie from being rated R, and while it doesn’t bother me per se, I still think this was an important plot element to show the coming of age of the two older kids and how it is twisted by the greed of their mother and the hatred of their grandmother.
To me, there was only one liberty taken from the book that has no excuse, which is the plot line and ultimate fate of Corrine, the mother. The film stays true to a point. She starts out by keeping her children a secret until her dying father forgives her for marrying her Uncle and writes her back into his will, and as soon as he passes away, they get the money and can start a new life. Throughout the story, Corrine visits her children less and less. Fearing for her life, the two older children find a way to leave the room and explore the house, only to find that their mother is living in extreme comfort and happiness while they suffer in their prison. According to the grandfather’s will, if it is discovered that Corrine had children from her marriage to her uncle, even after the grandfather passed on, she would be disinherited all over again and would have nothing, which prompts Corrine to attempt to murder her children in an attempt to keep them a secret forever. In the film, the children confront their mother during her wedding to Bart Winslow, the family lawyer, and in a tussle with Cathy, Corrine in thrown from a balcony and hanged to death with her own wedding veil. In the novel, Corrine marries Bart Winslow halfway through the story and tells her children about her wedding and their honeymoon to Europe. Bart lives with the family in their giant house, and during one of their nighttime searches, Cathy sees him sleeping in a chair and lightly kisses him as he sleeps (which becomes important in the next book of the series.) When the children leave the house in the end, the mother is very much alive. The reason for this change is a little less clear, but I can guess that it was changed to give the movie a more climactic ending. It might have also been altered to end the movie with a sense of justice; that Corrine did not win the fight and does not get the money, or her life. I still think this was a mistake seeing as how Corrine is an important presence in the second novel, which was intended to be made into a movie as well. There is a definite social commentary made by this story about the evil of wealth and the lengths some will go to in order to acquire/keep hold of their gold. It shows how the desire for riches and comfort can corrupt the human soul, and it is the innocent that will pay the price for their greed. But this is a story about a family; about death and survival, good and evil; love and hate, with both God and the devil watching.
The Breakdown
Cast Performance - Perfect. The cast shines in this film. There is not one performance that is less that great, and I almost never say that.
Violence - Mild. There is some hard slapping, including a strike against a young child.
Nudity - none. Plot elements that would have called for nudity were omitted.
Ambience/Music- Excellent. The bedroom and attic set were almost exactly as they were described in the book. The main theme of the movie is memorable and beautifully haunting.
Overall rating: 4.5/5.0
Interesting Notes
-Louise Fletcher and Kristy Swanson were both given scripts for the second book of the series, “Petals on the Wind.” The movie never went into production. Swanson described the movie as “all sex.”
-Kristy Swanson was introduced to V.C. Andrews, and the author said that she was just how she pictured Cathy.
-V.C. Andrews makes a cameo appearance in this film (she’s a old lady washing the windows.) Sadly, the author passed away before the film was released.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Bob's Quick Look - The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones (2013)
Based on the first book of the bestselling series, this film centers on a teenage girl who is thrust into a world of dark mysticism when her mother disappears, and evil forces hunt for her and an ancient artifact her mother was hiding. As she searches for her lost mother, and learns about the angel blood in her veins and the power she possesses, she is torn between her closest friend and the young warrior who is sworn to protect her.
*Spoiler alert* I’ve heard quite a few people describe this movie as Harry Potter meets Twilight. I can see that. As with both, the main story element centers on a “normal” person being thrust into a supernatural environment. Visually, it has a bit in common with the Harry Potter films; especially with the scenes inside “the Institute” and visual effects such as the dimensional portal. It also carries the love triangle aspect and the teenage target audience of the Twilight saga.
Even though this film would not have to reach far to do so, it does possess a level of sophistication that these other two franchises lack. Even though there were times that felt like the writers wanted to take us from point a to point be a little too quickly, the movie had a good flowing motion with a decent balance of action scenes and story telling to keep the plot moving. And I will say that this is a beautiful movie to watch on the big screen.
While the motion was fluid for the most part, it does get choppy at a couple of points. It also seemed at times that there were things going on that one might understand if they had read the novel. When I saw this movie, I had not, so I was left with questions such as, “Why could Simon not see Jace in the club, but could see him later on?” This is answered in the book but not the movie, as far I remember.
All in all, I would say this is a pretty good summer movie; visually striking with an interesting premise. This film could have used a rewrite or two of the script before being filmed with focus on the fact that not everyone in the theater has read the book.
All in all, I would say this is a pretty good summer movie; visually striking with an interesting premise. This film could have used a rewrite or two of the script before being filmed with focus on the fact that not everyone in the theater has read the book.
Monday, September 2, 2013
Quick Look: Back to School (1986)
People in the Movie: Rodney Dangerfield, Keith Gordon, Sally Kellerman
Director: Alan Metter
Pigeonhole: Comedy
Basics: Thornton Melon (Dangerfield) is a millionaire businessman who owns the successful chain of clothing stores called "Tall and Fat". His son, Jason (Gordon), is a freshman at Grand Lakes University, but is questioning his desire to continue at GLU after a mediocre first term. Thornton decides to enroll - having never gotten a higher education himself - to motivate his son, and to party, but quickly learns that his challenges in the classroom are not like the challenges of being a successful entrepreneur. Somehow, Thornton is able to balance his academic life and personal life by starting a romance with one of his professors, Dr. Diane Turner (Kellerman).
Recommendation: Back to School has some of the actors and elements of the best 80's comedies including: Dangerfield's irreverent "no respect" type humor; Robert Downey, Jr. in a supporting role; William Zabka as the bully/ antagonist to one of the main characters; Sam Kinison as a history professor and Burt Young as the sloppy, low-talking manservant. While it is not the "best" movie for any one of the actors, it is a funny, well-paced movie, and you get exactly what you are expecting.
At the Dead Man's Party we Twist and Shout: **spoiler alert**
After divorcing his cheating, gold-digging wife at the beginning of the film, Thornton hops in his limo to visit his son at school. Jason tells his dad he does not like it there; he did not make the diving team his first semester, his only friend is Derek (Downey), and he is not doing "that great" in class. Thornton's answer to move in with Jason and Derek - by buying several rooms on Jason's floor and remodeling them into a giant party suite - and enrolling in classes. Thornton falls for his literature professor, Dr. Turner, (on the first day of his class, no less) which has the typical ups and downs of a fling in a comedy.
While the plot unfolds in a very formulaic manner, there are enough laughs to keep it moving along. Kinison is a professor of Contemporary American History who likes to unleash his crazy screaming on students. Oingo Boingo headlines Thornton's dorm party "of the year" with a nice musical bit. Zabka, known for his high school bullying in Karate Kid and Just One of the Guys, graduates to college, to bully Jason as the captain of the swim team. At the end of the film Thornton shows off his ultimate trick dive called the "Triple Lindy" to win a swim meet, in a kind of Animal House/ Revenge of the Nerds 80's victory.
Extras:
- Dangerfield was actually a trick diver in his younger days
- The film was shot mostly at the University of Wisconsin- Madison
Director: Alan Metter
Pigeonhole: Comedy
Basics: Thornton Melon (Dangerfield) is a millionaire businessman who owns the successful chain of clothing stores called "Tall and Fat". His son, Jason (Gordon), is a freshman at Grand Lakes University, but is questioning his desire to continue at GLU after a mediocre first term. Thornton decides to enroll - having never gotten a higher education himself - to motivate his son, and to party, but quickly learns that his challenges in the classroom are not like the challenges of being a successful entrepreneur. Somehow, Thornton is able to balance his academic life and personal life by starting a romance with one of his professors, Dr. Diane Turner (Kellerman).
Recommendation: Back to School has some of the actors and elements of the best 80's comedies including: Dangerfield's irreverent "no respect" type humor; Robert Downey, Jr. in a supporting role; William Zabka as the bully/ antagonist to one of the main characters; Sam Kinison as a history professor and Burt Young as the sloppy, low-talking manservant. While it is not the "best" movie for any one of the actors, it is a funny, well-paced movie, and you get exactly what you are expecting.
At the Dead Man's Party we Twist and Shout: **spoiler alert**
After divorcing his cheating, gold-digging wife at the beginning of the film, Thornton hops in his limo to visit his son at school. Jason tells his dad he does not like it there; he did not make the diving team his first semester, his only friend is Derek (Downey), and he is not doing "that great" in class. Thornton's answer to move in with Jason and Derek - by buying several rooms on Jason's floor and remodeling them into a giant party suite - and enrolling in classes. Thornton falls for his literature professor, Dr. Turner, (on the first day of his class, no less) which has the typical ups and downs of a fling in a comedy.
While the plot unfolds in a very formulaic manner, there are enough laughs to keep it moving along. Kinison is a professor of Contemporary American History who likes to unleash his crazy screaming on students. Oingo Boingo headlines Thornton's dorm party "of the year" with a nice musical bit. Zabka, known for his high school bullying in Karate Kid and Just One of the Guys, graduates to college, to bully Jason as the captain of the swim team. At the end of the film Thornton shows off his ultimate trick dive called the "Triple Lindy" to win a swim meet, in a kind of Animal House/ Revenge of the Nerds 80's victory.
Extras:
- Dangerfield was actually a trick diver in his younger days
- The film was shot mostly at the University of Wisconsin- Madison
Saturday, August 10, 2013
Awesome movie quotes: Ghost Busters (1984)
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
Awesome movie quotes: In The Line Of Fire (1993)
"Do you have any idea what I've done for God and country? Some pretty FUCKING HORRIBLE things! I don't even remember who I was before they sunk their claws into me!"
Saturday, August 3, 2013
Awesome movie quotes: When Harry Met Sally (1989)
<Meg Ryan just finishes her "fake orgasm" in the deli>
woman nearby: "I'll have what she's having..."
woman nearby: "I'll have what she's having..."
Quick Look: Friends With Benefits (2011)
This is an entertaining little romp starring Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis; while the plot is absolutely predictable, the comedic moments, dialogue, and supporting cast make it worth seeing. It is directed by Will Gluck, and is rated 'R' for language and sexuality.
Friends: Jamie (Kunis) is a New York head-hunter, and recruits Dylan (Timberlake) away from his job in Los Angeles to come work for GQ Magazine. Not knowing anyone in New York, Dylan hangs out with Jamie, and they become fast friends seeing each other frequently, but this relationship inevitably turns sexual. Jamie and Dylan make a pact for their relationship not to turn romantic, attempting to do as the title suggests - be friends with "benefits" - but as the plot unravels we discover both characters have intimacy issues linked to their parents and remaining just friends with benefits is an impossibility.
Dylan cannot fully commit because his mother left his father (and family) after it was discovered his father had Alzheimer's disease, and she chose to abandon them. Jamie cannot commit (from what I gather) because her mother is a free-spirit and cannot stay committed to men in any relationships, highlighted by the fact that Jamie's mom remembers almost nothing about Jamie's father. But, this being a romantic comedy - all works out in the end and they get back together after resolution of the "conflict".
The Benefits: Timberlake and Kunis have good on-screen chemistry, and you could believe the two were actually friends. This is definitely more of an adult 'R' rated comedy because of the dialogue being interlaced with a fair amount of profanities, and the subject matter being more about how 2 adults attempt to kept their friendship and their sex compartmentalized versus the building of their romance. Of course, common sense dictates that in life and in film, there really is no true way for people to be friends and sexual partners without the romantic and/or emotional attachments, as well.
Jenna Elfman turned in an excellent supporting role as Dylan's sister. She lives in L.A., is a single mom, and is taking care of Dylan's father. Elfman was a serious character (compared to her typical comic roles), but still very happy and bright in light of her circumstances. I would also say she was the proverbial glue holding Dylan's family together. Woody Harrleson plays a flamboyant, gay co-worker of Dylan's at GQ, and offers perfect comic relief at multiple moments through the film.
Recommendation: I do not consider myself a big fan of the rom-com genre, but Friends With Benefits is worth seeing. I hold this on the same level as I hold 'When Harry Met Sally', as far as entertainment value.
Friends: Jamie (Kunis) is a New York head-hunter, and recruits Dylan (Timberlake) away from his job in Los Angeles to come work for GQ Magazine. Not knowing anyone in New York, Dylan hangs out with Jamie, and they become fast friends seeing each other frequently, but this relationship inevitably turns sexual. Jamie and Dylan make a pact for their relationship not to turn romantic, attempting to do as the title suggests - be friends with "benefits" - but as the plot unravels we discover both characters have intimacy issues linked to their parents and remaining just friends with benefits is an impossibility.
Dylan cannot fully commit because his mother left his father (and family) after it was discovered his father had Alzheimer's disease, and she chose to abandon them. Jamie cannot commit (from what I gather) because her mother is a free-spirit and cannot stay committed to men in any relationships, highlighted by the fact that Jamie's mom remembers almost nothing about Jamie's father. But, this being a romantic comedy - all works out in the end and they get back together after resolution of the "conflict".
The Benefits: Timberlake and Kunis have good on-screen chemistry, and you could believe the two were actually friends. This is definitely more of an adult 'R' rated comedy because of the dialogue being interlaced with a fair amount of profanities, and the subject matter being more about how 2 adults attempt to kept their friendship and their sex compartmentalized versus the building of their romance. Of course, common sense dictates that in life and in film, there really is no true way for people to be friends and sexual partners without the romantic and/or emotional attachments, as well.
Jenna Elfman turned in an excellent supporting role as Dylan's sister. She lives in L.A., is a single mom, and is taking care of Dylan's father. Elfman was a serious character (compared to her typical comic roles), but still very happy and bright in light of her circumstances. I would also say she was the proverbial glue holding Dylan's family together. Woody Harrleson plays a flamboyant, gay co-worker of Dylan's at GQ, and offers perfect comic relief at multiple moments through the film.
Recommendation: I do not consider myself a big fan of the rom-com genre, but Friends With Benefits is worth seeing. I hold this on the same level as I hold 'When Harry Met Sally', as far as entertainment value.
Monday, July 29, 2013
Bob's Quick Look: The Conjuring (2013)
James Wan (Saw, Insidious) directs this haunted house film which is based on a true case from the files of noted paranormal investigators, Ed and Lorraine Warren, who are famous for investigating the notorious “Amityville” house.
The Perron family have moved into a picturesque farm house in Rhode Island, and from day one their lives become a living nightmare. Their dog refuses to enter the house (it’s often noted that animals can sense the supernatural) and the next day, she is found dead. The mother wakes up every morning with bruises, and the daughters are all terrorized in different ways; being pulled across their bed, induced into sleepwalked, etc. The demonic attacks only get worse, and the Perrons enlist the help of Ed and Lorraine Warren to clear their house of the evil spirits.
There have been movies in the past, such as “The Fourth Kind,” that were supposedly based on true events, but were later debunked as either embellishments of otherwise non-noteworthy events, or just downright hoaxes. It came out in the mid 90’s that the Amityville case was a mortgage scam. But, in the case of this movie, no debunking has happened yet, and the Perrons and Lorraine Warren were deeply involved in this movie’s making (Ed Warren sadly passed away in 2006.) So, as far as I know, the events in the movie are true.
*Spoiler Alert* The first thing I liked about this movie is that Wan creates a tense atmosphere once we are brought into the home, and never lets up on the tension. In a lot of ways, this is a better way to get the audience with a jump scare than to build the tension then snap, then let the tension die away. There is no sense of safety for the characters until the very end, which was an effective way to bring the viewer into the character’s fear for the hour and 50 minutes we’re together. There was one element missing that many screenwriters use to create tension in films like this; which is internal family tension, such as sibling rivalry or marital problems either in place before or caused by the haunting. I was quite happy about this as it never creates tension but does cause annoyance, kind of like the French fry scene in “The Possession.”
As far as the ghosts and haunting elements themselves, one has to remember that this film was based on true events, because there is nothing here that has never been seen before. James Wan has said in an interview that he did not embellish the events to raise the scare factor, but it is a horror film and not a documentary. As a horror fan, I would say that the balance between realism and fright factor is well maintained.
At the risk of sounding bitter, I will say that this movie is rated R for no real reason. There is very little (if any) blood, there is no nudity, only one very slight allusion to sexuality between a married couple, very little in the way of adult language, and nothing really that has not been seen in a PG-13 film. The only conclusion Wan could see is the MPAA were concerned about the fact that this was based on true events and the overall intensity of the film. I, on the other hand, am of the opinion that the MPAA are a bunch of power hungry Nazis who were trying to exercise their authority over movies in general, or extort money from the studio for a lower rating. I for one am happy that the studio accepted the R rating, but it concerns me that films like this might start being rated NC-17 for the aforementioned reasons.
Overall, this is a good example of what can be done in a haunted house movie. It gets my high recommendations.
Interesting stuff:
*The case from the Warrens’ career involving a possessed doll named “Annabelle” was shown briefly in the beginning of the movie. In the film, “Annabelle” is a porcelain doll with some facial damage. In real life, “Annabelle” is a rag doll.
*In the film, Bathsheba Sherman is a witch who, in the name of Satan, cursed those who inhabited her family’s land before hanging herself. In real life, Bathsheba Sherman was suspected of witchcraft and murder of an infant, but was found not guilty by the court of law. She also died of natural causes.
There have been movies in the past, such as “The Fourth Kind,” that were supposedly based on true events, but were later debunked as either embellishments of otherwise non-noteworthy events, or just downright hoaxes. It came out in the mid 90’s that the Amityville case was a mortgage scam. But, in the case of this movie, no debunking has happened yet, and the Perrons and Lorraine Warren were deeply involved in this movie’s making (Ed Warren sadly passed away in 2006.) So, as far as I know, the events in the movie are true.
*Spoiler Alert* The first thing I liked about this movie is that Wan creates a tense atmosphere once we are brought into the home, and never lets up on the tension. In a lot of ways, this is a better way to get the audience with a jump scare than to build the tension then snap, then let the tension die away. There is no sense of safety for the characters until the very end, which was an effective way to bring the viewer into the character’s fear for the hour and 50 minutes we’re together. There was one element missing that many screenwriters use to create tension in films like this; which is internal family tension, such as sibling rivalry or marital problems either in place before or caused by the haunting. I was quite happy about this as it never creates tension but does cause annoyance, kind of like the French fry scene in “The Possession.”
As far as the ghosts and haunting elements themselves, one has to remember that this film was based on true events, because there is nothing here that has never been seen before. James Wan has said in an interview that he did not embellish the events to raise the scare factor, but it is a horror film and not a documentary. As a horror fan, I would say that the balance between realism and fright factor is well maintained.
At the risk of sounding bitter, I will say that this movie is rated R for no real reason. There is very little (if any) blood, there is no nudity, only one very slight allusion to sexuality between a married couple, very little in the way of adult language, and nothing really that has not been seen in a PG-13 film. The only conclusion Wan could see is the MPAA were concerned about the fact that this was based on true events and the overall intensity of the film. I, on the other hand, am of the opinion that the MPAA are a bunch of power hungry Nazis who were trying to exercise their authority over movies in general, or extort money from the studio for a lower rating. I for one am happy that the studio accepted the R rating, but it concerns me that films like this might start being rated NC-17 for the aforementioned reasons.
Overall, this is a good example of what can be done in a haunted house movie. It gets my high recommendations.
Interesting stuff:
*The case from the Warrens’ career involving a possessed doll named “Annabelle” was shown briefly in the beginning of the movie. In the film, “Annabelle” is a porcelain doll with some facial damage. In real life, “Annabelle” is a rag doll.
*In the film, Bathsheba Sherman is a witch who, in the name of Satan, cursed those who inhabited her family’s land before hanging herself. In real life, Bathsheba Sherman was suspected of witchcraft and murder of an infant, but was found not guilty by the court of law. She also died of natural causes.
No we haven't gone dark...
My brother and I are both still alive and well, but in the dog days of summer it seems we have been unable to get much writing done.
Never fear, posts are on the way.
Never fear, posts are on the way.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
Awesome movie quotes: Caddyshack (1980)
"What are we waiting for these guys? .... Let's go, while we're young."
"Do you mind.. we're trying to tee off."
"I bet you slice it into the woods, 100 bucks."
"Gambling is illegal at Bushwood, and I never slice."
<slices ball into in the woods>
"Damn!"
"Ok, you can owe me."
"I owe you nothing!"
"Do you mind.. we're trying to tee off."
"I bet you slice it into the woods, 100 bucks."
"Gambling is illegal at Bushwood, and I never slice."
<slices ball into in the woods>
"Damn!"
"Ok, you can owe me."
"I owe you nothing!"
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
Awesome movie quotes: Gangs of New York (2002)
"You see this knife? I'm going to teach you to speak English with this fucking knife!"
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Quick Look: Thank You For Smoking (2005)
Thank You for Smoking is an excellent satirical comedy, and is a perfect slap in the face to the politically correct agenda of the time. It stars Aaron Eckhart (The Dark Knight, Suspect Zero), and is directed by Jason Reitman (Juno, Up in the Air) in his feature film debut. 'R' rating is for language, and sexuality.
**spoiler alert**
Nick Naylor (Eckhart) is handsome, intelligent, and the smooth-talking lead spokesperson for "Big Tobacco". His job is to defend tobacco by publicly questioning research linking smoking to health impacts, and to advocate for personal choice to smoke. The story is narrated by Nick, and focuses on his relationships with his friends, his 12 year old son that he is trying to be a role model for, and how he does his job.
Every week Nick has dinner with friends Polly Bailey (Maria Bello) and Bobby Jo Bliss (David Koechner). Polly is a lobbyist for alcohol, while Bobby is lobbyist for firearms. The three humorously refer to themselves as the "Merchants of Death" and discuss the ups and downs they experience in each of their respective industries.
Because cigarette sales are down, especially among young smokers, Nick believes some product placement in movies will help boost the numbers. Nick is sent to Hollywood and he takes his son with him - teaching him about the "power of argument". Nick meets with Jeff Megall (Rob Lowe), an agent, attempting to convince him to have actors start smoking on-screen. Jeff seems onboard with Nick's ideas. Nick is also tasked with bribing Lorne Lutch (Sam Elliott), the original 'Marlboro Man', who now has cancer, to discontinue his campaign against smoking.
All seems to be going well for Nick until a tabloid reporter named Heather Holloway (Katie Holmes) - that Nick was sleeping with - blows the lid off all of Nick's recent spin tactics. Nick is fired, and it seems his hard work has been "undone". While initially depressed at this turn of events, Nick goes before a Senate hearing and argues successfully against over-zealous Senator Finistirre (William Macy), who wants to place a skull and cross bones on packs of cigarettes, getting this absurd measure defeated.
Reinvigorated, Nicks open a private lobbying firm, while Nick's son wins a school debate using the argument tactics his dad him throughout the film.
The beauty of this film is the writing and the dialogue execution. It is funny and sharp, with Eckhart still being able to come off as a very likable character, despite being a lobbyist for tobacco. I have to give extremely high praise to both Eckhart and to Reitman for the casting and direction. I highly recommend this film, I consider one of the best films of the 2000's. I would warn anyone who does not like satirical-type comedies because the air of this film is thick with it. (Get what I did there?)
Interesting Stuff:
- No one is seen smoking in the movie, which was intentional
- Sam Elliott's was based on the real-life Marlboro Man who did get cancer and advocated for anti-smoking legislation
- The screenplay is based on a book of the same name written by Christopher Buckley, whose father columnist William Buckley, died of emphysema.
**spoiler alert**
Nick Naylor (Eckhart) is handsome, intelligent, and the smooth-talking lead spokesperson for "Big Tobacco". His job is to defend tobacco by publicly questioning research linking smoking to health impacts, and to advocate for personal choice to smoke. The story is narrated by Nick, and focuses on his relationships with his friends, his 12 year old son that he is trying to be a role model for, and how he does his job.
Every week Nick has dinner with friends Polly Bailey (Maria Bello) and Bobby Jo Bliss (David Koechner). Polly is a lobbyist for alcohol, while Bobby is lobbyist for firearms. The three humorously refer to themselves as the "Merchants of Death" and discuss the ups and downs they experience in each of their respective industries.
Because cigarette sales are down, especially among young smokers, Nick believes some product placement in movies will help boost the numbers. Nick is sent to Hollywood and he takes his son with him - teaching him about the "power of argument". Nick meets with Jeff Megall (Rob Lowe), an agent, attempting to convince him to have actors start smoking on-screen. Jeff seems onboard with Nick's ideas. Nick is also tasked with bribing Lorne Lutch (Sam Elliott), the original 'Marlboro Man', who now has cancer, to discontinue his campaign against smoking.
All seems to be going well for Nick until a tabloid reporter named Heather Holloway (Katie Holmes) - that Nick was sleeping with - blows the lid off all of Nick's recent spin tactics. Nick is fired, and it seems his hard work has been "undone". While initially depressed at this turn of events, Nick goes before a Senate hearing and argues successfully against over-zealous Senator Finistirre (William Macy), who wants to place a skull and cross bones on packs of cigarettes, getting this absurd measure defeated.
Reinvigorated, Nicks open a private lobbying firm, while Nick's son wins a school debate using the argument tactics his dad him throughout the film.
The beauty of this film is the writing and the dialogue execution. It is funny and sharp, with Eckhart still being able to come off as a very likable character, despite being a lobbyist for tobacco. I have to give extremely high praise to both Eckhart and to Reitman for the casting and direction. I highly recommend this film, I consider one of the best films of the 2000's. I would warn anyone who does not like satirical-type comedies because the air of this film is thick with it. (Get what I did there?)
Interesting Stuff:
- No one is seen smoking in the movie, which was intentional
- Sam Elliott's was based on the real-life Marlboro Man who did get cancer and advocated for anti-smoking legislation
- The screenplay is based on a book of the same name written by Christopher Buckley, whose father columnist William Buckley, died of emphysema.
Monday, June 24, 2013
Awesome movie quotes: Thank You For Smoking (2005)
"Bobby Jay works for S.A.F.E.T.Y., the Society for the Advancement of Firearms and Effective Training for Youth. After watching the footage of the Kent State shootings, Bobby Jay, then seventeen, signed up for the National Guard so that he, too, could shoot college students. But, the National Guard recruiter was out to lunch, so Bobby Jay ended up shooting Panamanians instead. Which is almost as fun as shooting college students, only they shoot back."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)