Not much detail here yet. I've been working on this list since last Halloween and this is what I've come up with -- my list of the 50 Greatest Horror Films of All-Time, starting with "Halloween" and ending with "Henry: Portrait of A Serial Killer". Please comment with positives and negatives...
_____________________________________________________________
50. Henry: Portrait of A Serial Killer
49. Christine
48. Near Dark
47. Hellbound: Hellraiser II
46. Re-Animator
45. Dawn of the Dead
44. The Omen
43. Saw
42. The Company of Wolves
41. Carrie
40. Evil Dead II: Dead By Dawn
39. Prince of Darkness
38. Creepshow
37. Scream
36. Pumpkinhead
35. Dead Alive
34. Rec
33. Cannibal Holocaust
32. Candyman
31. Freaks
30. The Sixth Sense
29. Audition
28. The Wicker Man
27. Phantasm
26. The Shining
25. Demons
24. Friday the 13TH
23. Poltergeist
22. 28 Days Later
21. Peeping Tom
20. The Descent
19. The Howling
18. Rosemary’s Baby
17. Black Sunday
16. The Evil Dead
15. The Thing
14. The Birds
13. An American Werewolf in London
12. A Nightmare on Elm Street
11. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
10. Village of the Damned
09. Nosferatu (1922)
08. Night of the Living Dead
07. The Blair Witch Project
06. Suspiria
05. Invasion of the Body Snatchers
04. Jaws
03. The Exorcist
02. Alien
01. Halloween
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
TRANSSIBERIAN Film Critique
Siberia -- where everybody knows your name.
Brad Anderson is a genius. He is one of the so-called ‘new breed’ of horror directors, alongside other notable names such as Neil Marshall and Larry Fessenden. Personally, I think Brad Anderson has them all crushed. “Session 9" was one of the most atmospheric and genuinely creepy horror films to come around in decades, gathering a cult following over the years. “The Machinist” was another masterwork, featuring the performance of a lifetime from a skeletal Christian Bale. Whereas Neil Marshall seems to be following the John Carpenter path and Larry Fessenden seems to be following the Wes Craven path – Brad Anderson is taking his cues from one of the greatest directors of all-time – Mr. Alfred Hitchcock. “Transsiberian” is Anderson’s latest film, a thriller reminiscent of Hitchcock classics like “Strangers On A Train” and “The Man Who Knew Too Much”. It’s the closest to modern day Hitchcock that we’ve had in a long, long time. That said, to go for the whole Hitchcock feel is nothing short of pale imitation. Luckily, Anderson is also one hell of a fine screen writer and “Transsiberian” is one of the best written thrillers of recent memory. It has its flaws, and it does leave far too many questions unanswered, but “Transsiberian” is a damned good flick.
The story follows a young American couple, Roy (Woody Harrelson) and Jessie (Emily Mortimer), who are traveling from China to Russia, after doing some mission work with their church. On the train they meet Carlos (Eduardo Noriega) and Abby (Kate Mara), who claim to be traveling from Japan, having done some educational work there. Through a curious turn of events, Roy is left stranded at a train station, Jessie is forced to deal with an unexpected tragedy and the emergence of a Russian narcotics investigator, Grinko (Ben Kingsley) turns everything upside down. That really is an over-simplification of the plot, but I don’t want to give too much away. Whereas the first part of the film seems more like a character study – and it is – the second half of the film turns into the real Hitchcock-influenced roller coaster ride. The film culminates with one of the most engaging and terrifying realizations, made by Harrelson and his wife when they realize that the doors in the train aren’t necessarily leading to where they should be leading. “Transsiberian” is a mental mind jolt that forces the audience to be one step ahead of the characters. We don’t know what’s going on most of the time, but we have an idea, and that’s just as much as the characters have.
The build-up in this film is tangible. There is this overwhelming sense of dread that sweeps through the entire film and never lets up. You don’t know where the story is going to go, you don’t know what is going to happen and you don’t know who is going to survive. Anderson achieved this same sense of bewilderment with both “Session 9" and “The Machinist”. He seems to be an expert at giving the audience exactly what will drive them insane – uncertainty. “Transsiberian” features some fantastic camerawork from the great Xavi Gimenez, who also shot “The Machinist” and the horror film “The Abandoned”. The original score by Alfonso Vilallonga is just gorgeous and it brings back memories of those old Bernard Hermann scores from Alfred Hitchcock films. It almost seems as if “Transsiberian” was set up to be a Hitchcock tribute, from the opening scene of the Ben Kingsley character investigating a murder scene to the closing shot of the strong female character getting her just rewards. The first half of the film works because of the character development and the sense of uncertainty and the second half works because of the ambiguity towards the situation and the ability of the characters to work some expertly under such tense situations.
The problems with the film are there, however. For starters, I didn’t really understanding why the Ben Kingsley character seemed to turn on a dime so routinely. One minute he seems understanding and the next minute he seems maniacal. There was no continuity to what he was doing and what he does at the end of the film loses a little power because we just don’t buy it. Kingsley is amazing at playing these types of characters and he turns in a very understated and effective performance here, but I wish his character had been given more motivation for what he was doing. I also had a big problem with what the Emily Mortimer character does to the Eduardo Noriega character. I guess I can kind of see where they were coming from, but I don’t know that the Mortimer character would have done that – I just didn’t completely buy it. It reminded me of “Unfaithful” and what the Richard Gere character does to the Olivier Martinez character, just reversed. And if there was a weak performance in the film, it came from Woody Harrelson as Roy. I can’t blame Harrelson for turning in a bad performance – it was just the wrong performance for that character in a film that strikes such a delicate balance. I wanted the Harrelson character to feel as real as the Mortimer and the Kingsley character. At times, he comes off as more of a cartoon character.
The highlight of this film is Emily Mortimer in yet another fantastic performance. Mortimer takes risks with this character and we never know where she’s coming from. By the end of the film, we have started to wonder what her character has done in the past that we don’t know about. We leave the film not knowing if she’s a good guy or a bad guy based simply on how she conducts herself and the types of things we know she’s capable of doing. “Transsiberian” lives in that world of the unknown and the unexpected. It asks a great deal of the audience and it delivers on most of what it offers. Brad Anderson is a fine director who continues to churn out solid efforts, even if they do seem a little close to homage at times. “Transsiberian” is a tense, edge-of-your-seat thriller with a depth of character and an attention to story that separates it from the rest of the pack. It features a stellar performance from Emily Mortimer and a vicious supporting turn from Ben Kingsley. It’s not one of the best films of the year, but it’s definitely worth checking out as soon as possible.
Woody Harrelson(Roy)
Emily Mortimer (Jessie)
Ben Kingsley (Grinko)
Eduardo Noriega (Carlos)
Kate Mara (Abby)
Thomas Kretschmann (Kolzak)
Director: Brad Anderson
RATED R
Brad Anderson is a genius. He is one of the so-called ‘new breed’ of horror directors, alongside other notable names such as Neil Marshall and Larry Fessenden. Personally, I think Brad Anderson has them all crushed. “Session 9" was one of the most atmospheric and genuinely creepy horror films to come around in decades, gathering a cult following over the years. “The Machinist” was another masterwork, featuring the performance of a lifetime from a skeletal Christian Bale. Whereas Neil Marshall seems to be following the John Carpenter path and Larry Fessenden seems to be following the Wes Craven path – Brad Anderson is taking his cues from one of the greatest directors of all-time – Mr. Alfred Hitchcock. “Transsiberian” is Anderson’s latest film, a thriller reminiscent of Hitchcock classics like “Strangers On A Train” and “The Man Who Knew Too Much”. It’s the closest to modern day Hitchcock that we’ve had in a long, long time. That said, to go for the whole Hitchcock feel is nothing short of pale imitation. Luckily, Anderson is also one hell of a fine screen writer and “Transsiberian” is one of the best written thrillers of recent memory. It has its flaws, and it does leave far too many questions unanswered, but “Transsiberian” is a damned good flick.
The story follows a young American couple, Roy (Woody Harrelson) and Jessie (Emily Mortimer), who are traveling from China to Russia, after doing some mission work with their church. On the train they meet Carlos (Eduardo Noriega) and Abby (Kate Mara), who claim to be traveling from Japan, having done some educational work there. Through a curious turn of events, Roy is left stranded at a train station, Jessie is forced to deal with an unexpected tragedy and the emergence of a Russian narcotics investigator, Grinko (Ben Kingsley) turns everything upside down. That really is an over-simplification of the plot, but I don’t want to give too much away. Whereas the first part of the film seems more like a character study – and it is – the second half of the film turns into the real Hitchcock-influenced roller coaster ride. The film culminates with one of the most engaging and terrifying realizations, made by Harrelson and his wife when they realize that the doors in the train aren’t necessarily leading to where they should be leading. “Transsiberian” is a mental mind jolt that forces the audience to be one step ahead of the characters. We don’t know what’s going on most of the time, but we have an idea, and that’s just as much as the characters have.
The build-up in this film is tangible. There is this overwhelming sense of dread that sweeps through the entire film and never lets up. You don’t know where the story is going to go, you don’t know what is going to happen and you don’t know who is going to survive. Anderson achieved this same sense of bewilderment with both “Session 9" and “The Machinist”. He seems to be an expert at giving the audience exactly what will drive them insane – uncertainty. “Transsiberian” features some fantastic camerawork from the great Xavi Gimenez, who also shot “The Machinist” and the horror film “The Abandoned”. The original score by Alfonso Vilallonga is just gorgeous and it brings back memories of those old Bernard Hermann scores from Alfred Hitchcock films. It almost seems as if “Transsiberian” was set up to be a Hitchcock tribute, from the opening scene of the Ben Kingsley character investigating a murder scene to the closing shot of the strong female character getting her just rewards. The first half of the film works because of the character development and the sense of uncertainty and the second half works because of the ambiguity towards the situation and the ability of the characters to work some expertly under such tense situations.
The problems with the film are there, however. For starters, I didn’t really understanding why the Ben Kingsley character seemed to turn on a dime so routinely. One minute he seems understanding and the next minute he seems maniacal. There was no continuity to what he was doing and what he does at the end of the film loses a little power because we just don’t buy it. Kingsley is amazing at playing these types of characters and he turns in a very understated and effective performance here, but I wish his character had been given more motivation for what he was doing. I also had a big problem with what the Emily Mortimer character does to the Eduardo Noriega character. I guess I can kind of see where they were coming from, but I don’t know that the Mortimer character would have done that – I just didn’t completely buy it. It reminded me of “Unfaithful” and what the Richard Gere character does to the Olivier Martinez character, just reversed. And if there was a weak performance in the film, it came from Woody Harrelson as Roy. I can’t blame Harrelson for turning in a bad performance – it was just the wrong performance for that character in a film that strikes such a delicate balance. I wanted the Harrelson character to feel as real as the Mortimer and the Kingsley character. At times, he comes off as more of a cartoon character.
The highlight of this film is Emily Mortimer in yet another fantastic performance. Mortimer takes risks with this character and we never know where she’s coming from. By the end of the film, we have started to wonder what her character has done in the past that we don’t know about. We leave the film not knowing if she’s a good guy or a bad guy based simply on how she conducts herself and the types of things we know she’s capable of doing. “Transsiberian” lives in that world of the unknown and the unexpected. It asks a great deal of the audience and it delivers on most of what it offers. Brad Anderson is a fine director who continues to churn out solid efforts, even if they do seem a little close to homage at times. “Transsiberian” is a tense, edge-of-your-seat thriller with a depth of character and an attention to story that separates it from the rest of the pack. It features a stellar performance from Emily Mortimer and a vicious supporting turn from Ben Kingsley. It’s not one of the best films of the year, but it’s definitely worth checking out as soon as possible.
Woody Harrelson(Roy)
Emily Mortimer (Jessie)
Ben Kingsley (Grinko)
Eduardo Noriega (Carlos)
Kate Mara (Abby)
Thomas Kretschmann (Kolzak)
Director: Brad Anderson
RATED R
Monday, October 27, 2008
PRIDE & GLORY Film Critique
Thank God you have "In Bruges" and "The Incredible Hulk" to fall back on.
There’s a moment in “Pride and Glory” when an Irish fight song starts playing on the jukebox at the local bar called Irish Eyes and the two lead characters put down their guns, raise their fists and engage in a balls-to-the-wall brawl with fists and pool balls and glasses of lager. It’s your typical European custom rearing its ugly head in the American mainstream. The only problem – I had no idea the characters were Irish. Sure, their last names were Tiernan and that might have been a clue, but they sure don’t act Irish. They don’t seen to have any sort of Irish traditions and the most Irish thing about them is Colin Farrell’s unibrow. “Pride and Glory”, the film, is forgettable. It’s very melodramatic, very hamfisted and very ‘on the page’. There’s no real tension or suspense because we know who the bad guy is right out of the gate. And not long after we find out who is, so does one of the other main characters so the suspense is gone of ‘will they find out’. “Pride and Glory” wants to be this hard-hitting cop drama about police corruption, family values and social unrest. It wants to be so much more than its rudimentary script would allow it. “Pride and Glory” feels like each and every cop drama we’ve seen in the past decade, and feels inferior to most of them. Because it does not care enough about its audience, it might be one of the worst films of the year.
Set in New York City, “Pride and Glory” follows the Tiernans, a family of cops who have been doing good and fighting the bad guys for years. Ray (Edward Norton) now works in missing persons after a tragic mistake sent him before the Grand Jury; Francis (Noah Emmerich) runs his unit and takes pride in his men and the work they do; Jimmy (Colin Farrell), a brother through marriage, is a sergeant with a hot temper; and Francis Sr. (Jon Voight), is a high ranking officer who loves his sons more than life itself. The film opens with four police officers being gunned down during a drug bust. Ray is appointed to the task force to discover who was responsible for tipping the dealers off to the cops showing up. It is soon discover that Jimmy was to blame because he has been involved in shady dealings for a while and one of his men tipped off the dealer. Francis discovers this and has to decide what to do with Jimmy and his men, even as Jimmy has threatened to frame Ray for what could be considered torture and homicide. All the while, Jon Voight’s character is pleading for his sons to do the right thing, even though taking advice from a logical alcoholic seems a little bizarre. There is also a side plot with Francis’s wife (Jennifer Ehle), who is dying of cancer. Oh, did I mention that there is a suicide, a gang riot and a baby nearly burned with an iron?
What is this film trying to accomplish? At first we think it’s going to be about family values, but it’s pretty clear that this family doesn’t have any values. They all seem so self-righteous and try to come across like they’re doing the right thing, but none of them are. They are only looking out for themselves. The film even tries to come across as a murder mystery. Guess what – there is no mystery. Director Gavin O’Connor decided it would be best for us to discover this mystery before the foundations are even set up completely. “Pride and Glory” made me remember “The Departed” and how fantastic that film was. That was a real cop drama. Maybe it was the fact that it came from one of the greatest directors of all-time, Martin Scorsese. I like to think it also had something to do with a fantastic script. “Pride and Glory” isn’t given that. We’re given the same approach as we’ve seen to every other cop drama of late, including the dreadful “Righteous Kill”. We just don’t care about these characters because the whole idea is that cops are better than we are and more loyal than we are and more worthy of life and connections and favors than we are. It’s a job. Yes, it’s a more difficult job than others, but it’s a job. You do your job and you go home and you get your check. I understand the whole life and death thing, but when you have characters this ugly, who cares?
As for performances, I am just not sure what in the hell Edward Norton was doing here. He was once notorious for being so selective with his scripts and now it seems like he has abandoned that selection process for the Jon Voight ‘anything goes’ rule of thumb. Norton just sleepwalks through this role, and when he tries to muster some emotion at the end, it comes off as laughable. And it pains me to say that about an amazing actor like Edward Norton. Colin Farrell plays the same damned role he always plays, and his scene in the apartment with the baby is just sick. And there is nothing about his portrayal of that character that would lead me to believe that he would do something like that. It felt like the director thought it would simply be one of those water cooler scenes for the office gossip. Jon Voight is so bad here is the father of the group. When Jon Voight acts drunk, the whole world knows it. Has the man ever gotten skunked before? Does he not know what it feels like? As old as he is, one would think so. The highlight from all the performances is the always underrated Noah Emmerich in what should have been the lead role. His character is given some attention and some back story and some home fire. We want to know more about his dying wife. We want to know more about his involvement. We get none of that.
That was the biggest problem with “Pride and Glory” – it didn’t answer any questions. We never find out Francis’s full involvement with the corruption. We never find out all the details to the case that sent Edward Norton to missing persons. We never find out what started Colin Farrell down the road of greed and corruption. We never find out what part the reporter had in anything. I hate films that treat the audience like they don’t deserve any better – we’re just going to slop something out there for you and hope you enjoy it. If you don’t, so what? “Pride and Glory” is disrespectful to the audience. When those two characters brought up their fists and started brawling, everyone in the audience seemed just as stunned as I was. Why were they doing that? When did they become such hardcore Irish fighters? Hell, when did they become Irish? “Pride and Glory” is bad. It’s a shame on all accounts. It just goes to show that you can have all the pedigree in the world, but if you don’t have a script and you don’t have a clue, you just wind up being utterly forgettable.
Edward Norton (Ray Tierney)
Colin Farrell (Jimmy Egan)
Noah Emmerich (Francis Tierney, Jr.)
Jon Voight (Francis Tierney, Sr.)
Jennifer Ehle (Abby Tierney)
John Ortiz (Sandy)
Manny Perez(Coco Dominguez)
Director: Gavin O’Connor
RATED R
There’s a moment in “Pride and Glory” when an Irish fight song starts playing on the jukebox at the local bar called Irish Eyes and the two lead characters put down their guns, raise their fists and engage in a balls-to-the-wall brawl with fists and pool balls and glasses of lager. It’s your typical European custom rearing its ugly head in the American mainstream. The only problem – I had no idea the characters were Irish. Sure, their last names were Tiernan and that might have been a clue, but they sure don’t act Irish. They don’t seen to have any sort of Irish traditions and the most Irish thing about them is Colin Farrell’s unibrow. “Pride and Glory”, the film, is forgettable. It’s very melodramatic, very hamfisted and very ‘on the page’. There’s no real tension or suspense because we know who the bad guy is right out of the gate. And not long after we find out who is, so does one of the other main characters so the suspense is gone of ‘will they find out’. “Pride and Glory” wants to be this hard-hitting cop drama about police corruption, family values and social unrest. It wants to be so much more than its rudimentary script would allow it. “Pride and Glory” feels like each and every cop drama we’ve seen in the past decade, and feels inferior to most of them. Because it does not care enough about its audience, it might be one of the worst films of the year.
Set in New York City, “Pride and Glory” follows the Tiernans, a family of cops who have been doing good and fighting the bad guys for years. Ray (Edward Norton) now works in missing persons after a tragic mistake sent him before the Grand Jury; Francis (Noah Emmerich) runs his unit and takes pride in his men and the work they do; Jimmy (Colin Farrell), a brother through marriage, is a sergeant with a hot temper; and Francis Sr. (Jon Voight), is a high ranking officer who loves his sons more than life itself. The film opens with four police officers being gunned down during a drug bust. Ray is appointed to the task force to discover who was responsible for tipping the dealers off to the cops showing up. It is soon discover that Jimmy was to blame because he has been involved in shady dealings for a while and one of his men tipped off the dealer. Francis discovers this and has to decide what to do with Jimmy and his men, even as Jimmy has threatened to frame Ray for what could be considered torture and homicide. All the while, Jon Voight’s character is pleading for his sons to do the right thing, even though taking advice from a logical alcoholic seems a little bizarre. There is also a side plot with Francis’s wife (Jennifer Ehle), who is dying of cancer. Oh, did I mention that there is a suicide, a gang riot and a baby nearly burned with an iron?
What is this film trying to accomplish? At first we think it’s going to be about family values, but it’s pretty clear that this family doesn’t have any values. They all seem so self-righteous and try to come across like they’re doing the right thing, but none of them are. They are only looking out for themselves. The film even tries to come across as a murder mystery. Guess what – there is no mystery. Director Gavin O’Connor decided it would be best for us to discover this mystery before the foundations are even set up completely. “Pride and Glory” made me remember “The Departed” and how fantastic that film was. That was a real cop drama. Maybe it was the fact that it came from one of the greatest directors of all-time, Martin Scorsese. I like to think it also had something to do with a fantastic script. “Pride and Glory” isn’t given that. We’re given the same approach as we’ve seen to every other cop drama of late, including the dreadful “Righteous Kill”. We just don’t care about these characters because the whole idea is that cops are better than we are and more loyal than we are and more worthy of life and connections and favors than we are. It’s a job. Yes, it’s a more difficult job than others, but it’s a job. You do your job and you go home and you get your check. I understand the whole life and death thing, but when you have characters this ugly, who cares?
As for performances, I am just not sure what in the hell Edward Norton was doing here. He was once notorious for being so selective with his scripts and now it seems like he has abandoned that selection process for the Jon Voight ‘anything goes’ rule of thumb. Norton just sleepwalks through this role, and when he tries to muster some emotion at the end, it comes off as laughable. And it pains me to say that about an amazing actor like Edward Norton. Colin Farrell plays the same damned role he always plays, and his scene in the apartment with the baby is just sick. And there is nothing about his portrayal of that character that would lead me to believe that he would do something like that. It felt like the director thought it would simply be one of those water cooler scenes for the office gossip. Jon Voight is so bad here is the father of the group. When Jon Voight acts drunk, the whole world knows it. Has the man ever gotten skunked before? Does he not know what it feels like? As old as he is, one would think so. The highlight from all the performances is the always underrated Noah Emmerich in what should have been the lead role. His character is given some attention and some back story and some home fire. We want to know more about his dying wife. We want to know more about his involvement. We get none of that.
That was the biggest problem with “Pride and Glory” – it didn’t answer any questions. We never find out Francis’s full involvement with the corruption. We never find out all the details to the case that sent Edward Norton to missing persons. We never find out what started Colin Farrell down the road of greed and corruption. We never find out what part the reporter had in anything. I hate films that treat the audience like they don’t deserve any better – we’re just going to slop something out there for you and hope you enjoy it. If you don’t, so what? “Pride and Glory” is disrespectful to the audience. When those two characters brought up their fists and started brawling, everyone in the audience seemed just as stunned as I was. Why were they doing that? When did they become such hardcore Irish fighters? Hell, when did they become Irish? “Pride and Glory” is bad. It’s a shame on all accounts. It just goes to show that you can have all the pedigree in the world, but if you don’t have a script and you don’t have a clue, you just wind up being utterly forgettable.
Edward Norton (Ray Tierney)
Colin Farrell (Jimmy Egan)
Noah Emmerich (Francis Tierney, Jr.)
Jon Voight (Francis Tierney, Sr.)
Jennifer Ehle (Abby Tierney)
John Ortiz (Sandy)
Manny Perez(Coco Dominguez)
Director: Gavin O’Connor
RATED R
SAW V Film Critique
I know what you did last Halloween...and I'm going the exact same thing this Halloween and every Halloween after that.
So, here’s the deal – I hate the “Saw” franchise and what it’s become. I get sick and tired of having to listen to people defend this crap year after year, attempting to justify why films like this have any purpose whatsoever. Some will say ‘to entertain the fans’. Well, if this is the quality if cinema that fans want, it’s no wonder why cinema is in such a sad state these days. Some will say ‘it’s to finish out the storyline’. When the original “Saw” was released, do you think they had sequels in mind? They didn’t even know if the film would make a dime, much less warrant a sequel. I don’t see how any film with an automatic turnaround time of one-year could ever amount to much. I saw the first of the “Saw” films in 2004, on opening night. I enjoyed the film – that is until Mr. Cary Elwes went on one of the worst acting rants in cinematic history. That scene alone pretty much destroyed the film for me. The next year, I caught “Saw II” in theatres. It was the same old tired story and had a very generic approach to it. I made the decision to skip “Saw III” and “Saw IV” altogether in theatres. Don’t ask me why I decided to see “Saw V”, having no back story from the previous two films. I was just in the mood for some blood and some horror and some graphic images, which this Halloween season has been sorely lacking. I didn’t go in expecting to understand everything I was seeing. I went in expecting to see another lame retread of the original film. And, although I am not going to recommend the film, it did change my opinion of the franchise somewhat.
The film opens in an unfortunate situation for one man. It seems he has been strapped down to a table, with a large pendulum blade hanging above. Jigsaw pops on the television screen and explains that those boxes next to him are for his hands. You see – the man was a murderer who was released on a technicality. Jigsaw tells the man he can either stick his hands in the boxes and have his bones bounded to dust or get cut in half by the pendulum getting ever-so closer to his torso. This grisly murder scene is the opening for “Saw V”. The rest of the film deals with Detective Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) trying to stay hidden as the new Jigsaw killer and Agent Strahm (Scott Patterson) trying to get to the bottom of the Jigsaw mystery. Tobin Bell pops up in flashbacks as the infamous Jigsaw killer, and we do feel the finality that this might be the original Jigsaw’s last dance. A side plot exists involving a group of five people trapped together in a room and given certain rules, culminating in a series of horrific deaths and lots and lots of the corn syrup and red food coloring. By the end of the film, “Saw V” wants to have tricked you into thinking lots of different things. It wants to sweep the rug out from underneath you and leave you excited about “Saw VI” next year. And, in the grand scheme of things, I suppose it does just that. It doesn’t seek finality. It runs from it.
My initial reaction to this franchise was negative. It just didn’t seem to have the same steam and the same longevity as a “Nightmare on Elm Street” or “Friday the 13th” franchise. I still don’t put it in the same league as those. The “Saw” films – no matter what you want to say – will always be that same breed of torture porn that has plagued cinema for a few years now. The “Saw” films cater to the worst aspects of the human psyche and they demonstrate just how depraved mass audiences can be when starved for traditional quality horror. If Vincent Price were still making horror films, I don’t know that we’d have any need for watching women getting electrocuted before nail bombed into a thousand sloppy pieces. I sincerely want someone to sit me down and explain to me how watching a man struggle for his life in a maze of razor wire could serve as entertainment? Is this really what audiences want to be doing with their time? Maybe it’s that old psychology – everyone has the potential to kill, it’s just that some of us act on it and some of us do not. Maybe those of us who don’t act on it need films like “Saw V” to keep the demons at bay. Maybe those of us who don’t act on it need to watch the most graphic and disturbing images possible to maintain a certain level of blood lust to prevent us from going on a rampage in a clock tower. If someone can sit me down and explain that to me, maybe I will have even more tolerance for this new sub-genre.
But, for the fans – “Saw V” serves its purpose. There is a storyline in this film, which is something I cannot say for the second picture in the series. I found myself actually wrapped up in the mystery, even with Scott Patterson’s character talking to himself way too much and Costas Mandylor’s constant mugging for the camera. Tobin Bell was the highlight of the picture, and he’s become a far better actor since 2005, turning into the poor mans Hannibal Lecter. “Saw V” takes all of the same elements that made the first four films so successful and just manipulates them a little. It doesn’t want to mess with a good thing. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. I suspect “Saw VI” will follow the exact same formula – it will open with a gruesome murder and close with a revelation that lets the audience know there will definitely be another film in the series. “Saw V” made $30 million this weekend and would have been #1 at the box office if not for the “High School Musical” film. As long as these films keep making lots of money on shoestring budgets, you bet your ass Lionsgate is going to keep churning them out. “Saw” has become their cash-cow. “Saw” allows them to spend so much more money on their more independent efforts. I guess that makes it okay.
In summation, I do not recommend “Saw V”. But, I don’t dislike it as much as the other films in the series. Maybe I have just settled down a little and started to appreciate the franchise for what it really is – a second rate “Hellraiser” – basically, “Home Alone” for the sadistic. What I can say is that I would love to see this franchise stray a little from the original formula. Show me something new. Give me some insight into the talents that made the original “Saw” so original and so unexpected. Right now, all we’re getting is the same tired old stories with different twists. “Saw V” is one of the better installments in the franchise and it kept me entertained, so I won’t bash it as badly as I have bashed the other films. That should make you “Saw”-heads rather jubilant.
Tobin Bell (Jigsaw/John Tuck)
Costas Mandylor (Mark Hoffman)
Scott Patterson (Agent Strahm)
Betsy Russell (Jill Tuck)
Mark Rolston (Dan Erickson)
Director: David Hackl
RATED R
AND A HALF
So, here’s the deal – I hate the “Saw” franchise and what it’s become. I get sick and tired of having to listen to people defend this crap year after year, attempting to justify why films like this have any purpose whatsoever. Some will say ‘to entertain the fans’. Well, if this is the quality if cinema that fans want, it’s no wonder why cinema is in such a sad state these days. Some will say ‘it’s to finish out the storyline’. When the original “Saw” was released, do you think they had sequels in mind? They didn’t even know if the film would make a dime, much less warrant a sequel. I don’t see how any film with an automatic turnaround time of one-year could ever amount to much. I saw the first of the “Saw” films in 2004, on opening night. I enjoyed the film – that is until Mr. Cary Elwes went on one of the worst acting rants in cinematic history. That scene alone pretty much destroyed the film for me. The next year, I caught “Saw II” in theatres. It was the same old tired story and had a very generic approach to it. I made the decision to skip “Saw III” and “Saw IV” altogether in theatres. Don’t ask me why I decided to see “Saw V”, having no back story from the previous two films. I was just in the mood for some blood and some horror and some graphic images, which this Halloween season has been sorely lacking. I didn’t go in expecting to understand everything I was seeing. I went in expecting to see another lame retread of the original film. And, although I am not going to recommend the film, it did change my opinion of the franchise somewhat.
The film opens in an unfortunate situation for one man. It seems he has been strapped down to a table, with a large pendulum blade hanging above. Jigsaw pops on the television screen and explains that those boxes next to him are for his hands. You see – the man was a murderer who was released on a technicality. Jigsaw tells the man he can either stick his hands in the boxes and have his bones bounded to dust or get cut in half by the pendulum getting ever-so closer to his torso. This grisly murder scene is the opening for “Saw V”. The rest of the film deals with Detective Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) trying to stay hidden as the new Jigsaw killer and Agent Strahm (Scott Patterson) trying to get to the bottom of the Jigsaw mystery. Tobin Bell pops up in flashbacks as the infamous Jigsaw killer, and we do feel the finality that this might be the original Jigsaw’s last dance. A side plot exists involving a group of five people trapped together in a room and given certain rules, culminating in a series of horrific deaths and lots and lots of the corn syrup and red food coloring. By the end of the film, “Saw V” wants to have tricked you into thinking lots of different things. It wants to sweep the rug out from underneath you and leave you excited about “Saw VI” next year. And, in the grand scheme of things, I suppose it does just that. It doesn’t seek finality. It runs from it.
My initial reaction to this franchise was negative. It just didn’t seem to have the same steam and the same longevity as a “Nightmare on Elm Street” or “Friday the 13th” franchise. I still don’t put it in the same league as those. The “Saw” films – no matter what you want to say – will always be that same breed of torture porn that has plagued cinema for a few years now. The “Saw” films cater to the worst aspects of the human psyche and they demonstrate just how depraved mass audiences can be when starved for traditional quality horror. If Vincent Price were still making horror films, I don’t know that we’d have any need for watching women getting electrocuted before nail bombed into a thousand sloppy pieces. I sincerely want someone to sit me down and explain to me how watching a man struggle for his life in a maze of razor wire could serve as entertainment? Is this really what audiences want to be doing with their time? Maybe it’s that old psychology – everyone has the potential to kill, it’s just that some of us act on it and some of us do not. Maybe those of us who don’t act on it need films like “Saw V” to keep the demons at bay. Maybe those of us who don’t act on it need to watch the most graphic and disturbing images possible to maintain a certain level of blood lust to prevent us from going on a rampage in a clock tower. If someone can sit me down and explain that to me, maybe I will have even more tolerance for this new sub-genre.
But, for the fans – “Saw V” serves its purpose. There is a storyline in this film, which is something I cannot say for the second picture in the series. I found myself actually wrapped up in the mystery, even with Scott Patterson’s character talking to himself way too much and Costas Mandylor’s constant mugging for the camera. Tobin Bell was the highlight of the picture, and he’s become a far better actor since 2005, turning into the poor mans Hannibal Lecter. “Saw V” takes all of the same elements that made the first four films so successful and just manipulates them a little. It doesn’t want to mess with a good thing. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. I suspect “Saw VI” will follow the exact same formula – it will open with a gruesome murder and close with a revelation that lets the audience know there will definitely be another film in the series. “Saw V” made $30 million this weekend and would have been #1 at the box office if not for the “High School Musical” film. As long as these films keep making lots of money on shoestring budgets, you bet your ass Lionsgate is going to keep churning them out. “Saw” has become their cash-cow. “Saw” allows them to spend so much more money on their more independent efforts. I guess that makes it okay.
In summation, I do not recommend “Saw V”. But, I don’t dislike it as much as the other films in the series. Maybe I have just settled down a little and started to appreciate the franchise for what it really is – a second rate “Hellraiser” – basically, “Home Alone” for the sadistic. What I can say is that I would love to see this franchise stray a little from the original formula. Show me something new. Give me some insight into the talents that made the original “Saw” so original and so unexpected. Right now, all we’re getting is the same tired old stories with different twists. “Saw V” is one of the better installments in the franchise and it kept me entertained, so I won’t bash it as badly as I have bashed the other films. That should make you “Saw”-heads rather jubilant.
Tobin Bell (Jigsaw/John Tuck)
Costas Mandylor (Mark Hoffman)
Scott Patterson (Agent Strahm)
Betsy Russell (Jill Tuck)
Mark Rolston (Dan Erickson)
Director: David Hackl
RATED R
AND A HALF
Monday, October 20, 2008
W. Film Critique
Some quality time on Pennsylvania Avenue...
There are few directors out there as reckless with their careers as Oliver Stone. This is the man who has supplemented his talent as a filmmaker with countless controversies, thus turning him into more of a ‘showman’ than a ‘director’. His achievements include the Academy Award winning war drama “Platoon”, the dark and ruthless “Wall Street”, the controversial “JFK” and “Natural Born Killers” and the Jim Morrison biopic, “The Doors” – to name a few. However, his previous four feature films have been nothing short of disasters – “U-Turn”, “Any Given Sunday”, “Alexander” and “World Trade Center”. It seems that Oliver Stone has lost his way as a filmmaker. Maybe it’s that he has stopped taking risks with his filmmaking. His previous couple of films were safe and offered very little in the form of consistent and coherent narrative storytelling. It’s almost as if he just ran out of steam. “W.” marks his most ambitious film of recent memory, primarily because Stone prepped, shot and edited the film in 2008 to have it ready before the election. He basically did a ‘rush-job’ on the picture to get it out there for audience and potential voters. Michael Moore employed the same strategy in 2004 with “Fahrenheit 9/11", and we see what that did for the race. But, the rushing of completion aside, “W.” is definitely an Oliver Stone film. And, while it’s not even close to perfect, it did turn out to be better than I had imagined. I was expecting the same Oliver Stone I’d been given the past few years. This felt more like the Stone of old.
As you already know, “W.” is a biopic of current president George W. Bush (Josh Brolin). The film chronicles his life from his early-20's through the present, introducing us to all the characters in the man’s life, most of which we already know. We see how his tumultuous relationship with his father, George H.W. Bush (James Cromwell) shaped his determination and stubbornness. We see how his relationship with his wife, Laura (Elizabeth Banks) because a comforting presence in his life. We also see how the men in his cabinet basically shaped the way his Presidency would be remembered, from the gung-ho Dick Cheney (Richard Dreyfuss) and Donald Rumsfeld (Scott Glenn), to the more thoughtful Colin Powell (Jeffrey Wright) and George Tenant (Bruce McGill). We see the people who sit in the dark and pull the strings, like Karl Rove (Toby Jones) and Condaleeza Rice (Thandie Newton). All of these individuals have shaped George W. Bush and they do so in the film. The narrative style of the film resembles “Nixon” in that Stone mixes present day encounters with flashbacks showing Bush coming into his own, going from a jobless alcoholic and disgrace to his family to a politically minded businessman with all the charm and charisma it takes to win an election, as we now fully understand. The film stays away from hot topics like 9/11 and the Florida re-count, and there are large gaps of the Presidency unaccounted for, but we do get to see a lot of what caused Bush to take us into Iraq, and we find a little bit about how his childhood and his run ins with trouble shaped the man he is today, for better or for worse.
What worried me most about this film was Stone’s approach. I didn’t want to sit through two and a half hours of Bush-isms. If I want that, I can turn on just about any news channel. I didn’t want scene after scene of Bush saying idiotic things. I understand that the man slips up, but he’s not an idiot. “W.” manages to show that, though he does let his tongue get the better of him, Bush is still an intelligent man and a far craftier politician than anyone gives him credit for. We see early on, at a fraternity initiation, just how clever and quick-witted Bush really is. True, he did have far more experienced men behind him calling the shots, but Bush’s ego gets the better of him from time to time in the film, calling down those who might want to exert their authority on him. His most interesting relationships are with Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, the two men who shaped the first term more than any others. Bush warns Cheney about seeming to ‘commanding’ in meetings and he reminds Rove numerous times that ‘he’ is the President and has the final say. “W.” is not what I would call an ‘even handed’ approach to Bush, but it doesn’t spend two and a half hours bashing the man. It tries to look at things from his perspective and it tries to evoke some sympathy, even if just a little. In the end, George W. Bush comes across as sad. He comes off as a man who is constantly trying to step out of the shadow cast by his father; a man who always second guesses himself and lets others take the lead; a man who is terrified of failure, period.
In terms of performances, they are universally fantastic. Josh Brolin could easily find himself an Academy Award nomination as George W. Bush. One part spot-on imitation and one part total embodiment, his performance here is phenomenal. He finds the right balance between ‘good old boy’ and ‘tyrant’ and he plays it to the hilt. Also exceptional in their roles are Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney, the real villain of the film, and Jeffrey Wright as Colin Powell, the moral fiber of most of the meetings with the Cabinet. Scott Glenn revives his career with a great turn as Rumsfeld, and Toby Jones turns in another fantastic performance as Rove. Stacy Keach even has an interesting turn as a pastor and friend of George. If I was disappointed with anyone, it was Elizabeth Banks. Banks doesn’t really bring anything to the role and she never ages throughout the film. George is seen getting older and older and she still looks in her early-20's. But, I saved the best for last and the best is James Cromwell as Bush Sr. I would almost guarantee a Best Supporting Actor nod for his turn here, which is just astonishing. Cromwell embodies the man and brings so much depth and so much complexity to a role that could have been taken as mere imitation.
So my final verdict is this – “W.” is pretty damned good. It’s nowhere close to the level of Stone’s earlier Presidential work, “JFK” and “Nixon”, but the film stands on its own. I wish Stone had maybe taken a little more time to develop the project and I wish that he had spent a little more attention to those periods of the Presidency that he left out, but for such a quick production, he did a fine job. Imagine what he could have done with another year. The one thing I didn’t want was a film that painted the man like a moron for two and a half hours. I hate the man more than anyone else on the planet, but I’ve seen the Bush-isms thing one time too many. I found myself not feeling sympathy for the man, personally, but understanding how others could. It at least sheds a little more light on his motives and reasons for doing what he did. “W.” is being hailed by some and beaten up by others and I found myself in the middle, leaning more towards ‘hailing’. It’s not a perfect film. It’s not an even handed film, per se. But it’s an entertaining film. And it’s leaps and bounds better than the last couple of Oliver Stone films. He’s not officially back, but well on his way.
Josh Brolin (George W. Bush)
Elizabeth Banks (Laura Bush)
James Cromwell (George H.W. Bush)
Ellen Burstyn (Barbara Bush)
Toby Jones (Karl Rove)
Richard Dreyfuss (Dick Cheney)
Jeffrey Wright (Colin Powell)
Scott Glenn (Donald Rumsfeld)
Thandie Newton (Condaleeza Rice)
Dennis Boutsikaris (Paul Wolfowitz)
Bruce McGill (George Tenant)
Rob Corddry (Ari Fleischer)
Ioan Gruffudd (Tony Blair)
Stacy Keach (Earle Hudd)
Noah Wyle (Don Evans)
Director: Oliver Stone
RATED PG-13
There are few directors out there as reckless with their careers as Oliver Stone. This is the man who has supplemented his talent as a filmmaker with countless controversies, thus turning him into more of a ‘showman’ than a ‘director’. His achievements include the Academy Award winning war drama “Platoon”, the dark and ruthless “Wall Street”, the controversial “JFK” and “Natural Born Killers” and the Jim Morrison biopic, “The Doors” – to name a few. However, his previous four feature films have been nothing short of disasters – “U-Turn”, “Any Given Sunday”, “Alexander” and “World Trade Center”. It seems that Oliver Stone has lost his way as a filmmaker. Maybe it’s that he has stopped taking risks with his filmmaking. His previous couple of films were safe and offered very little in the form of consistent and coherent narrative storytelling. It’s almost as if he just ran out of steam. “W.” marks his most ambitious film of recent memory, primarily because Stone prepped, shot and edited the film in 2008 to have it ready before the election. He basically did a ‘rush-job’ on the picture to get it out there for audience and potential voters. Michael Moore employed the same strategy in 2004 with “Fahrenheit 9/11", and we see what that did for the race. But, the rushing of completion aside, “W.” is definitely an Oliver Stone film. And, while it’s not even close to perfect, it did turn out to be better than I had imagined. I was expecting the same Oliver Stone I’d been given the past few years. This felt more like the Stone of old.
As you already know, “W.” is a biopic of current president George W. Bush (Josh Brolin). The film chronicles his life from his early-20's through the present, introducing us to all the characters in the man’s life, most of which we already know. We see how his tumultuous relationship with his father, George H.W. Bush (James Cromwell) shaped his determination and stubbornness. We see how his relationship with his wife, Laura (Elizabeth Banks) because a comforting presence in his life. We also see how the men in his cabinet basically shaped the way his Presidency would be remembered, from the gung-ho Dick Cheney (Richard Dreyfuss) and Donald Rumsfeld (Scott Glenn), to the more thoughtful Colin Powell (Jeffrey Wright) and George Tenant (Bruce McGill). We see the people who sit in the dark and pull the strings, like Karl Rove (Toby Jones) and Condaleeza Rice (Thandie Newton). All of these individuals have shaped George W. Bush and they do so in the film. The narrative style of the film resembles “Nixon” in that Stone mixes present day encounters with flashbacks showing Bush coming into his own, going from a jobless alcoholic and disgrace to his family to a politically minded businessman with all the charm and charisma it takes to win an election, as we now fully understand. The film stays away from hot topics like 9/11 and the Florida re-count, and there are large gaps of the Presidency unaccounted for, but we do get to see a lot of what caused Bush to take us into Iraq, and we find a little bit about how his childhood and his run ins with trouble shaped the man he is today, for better or for worse.
What worried me most about this film was Stone’s approach. I didn’t want to sit through two and a half hours of Bush-isms. If I want that, I can turn on just about any news channel. I didn’t want scene after scene of Bush saying idiotic things. I understand that the man slips up, but he’s not an idiot. “W.” manages to show that, though he does let his tongue get the better of him, Bush is still an intelligent man and a far craftier politician than anyone gives him credit for. We see early on, at a fraternity initiation, just how clever and quick-witted Bush really is. True, he did have far more experienced men behind him calling the shots, but Bush’s ego gets the better of him from time to time in the film, calling down those who might want to exert their authority on him. His most interesting relationships are with Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, the two men who shaped the first term more than any others. Bush warns Cheney about seeming to ‘commanding’ in meetings and he reminds Rove numerous times that ‘he’ is the President and has the final say. “W.” is not what I would call an ‘even handed’ approach to Bush, but it doesn’t spend two and a half hours bashing the man. It tries to look at things from his perspective and it tries to evoke some sympathy, even if just a little. In the end, George W. Bush comes across as sad. He comes off as a man who is constantly trying to step out of the shadow cast by his father; a man who always second guesses himself and lets others take the lead; a man who is terrified of failure, period.
In terms of performances, they are universally fantastic. Josh Brolin could easily find himself an Academy Award nomination as George W. Bush. One part spot-on imitation and one part total embodiment, his performance here is phenomenal. He finds the right balance between ‘good old boy’ and ‘tyrant’ and he plays it to the hilt. Also exceptional in their roles are Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney, the real villain of the film, and Jeffrey Wright as Colin Powell, the moral fiber of most of the meetings with the Cabinet. Scott Glenn revives his career with a great turn as Rumsfeld, and Toby Jones turns in another fantastic performance as Rove. Stacy Keach even has an interesting turn as a pastor and friend of George. If I was disappointed with anyone, it was Elizabeth Banks. Banks doesn’t really bring anything to the role and she never ages throughout the film. George is seen getting older and older and she still looks in her early-20's. But, I saved the best for last and the best is James Cromwell as Bush Sr. I would almost guarantee a Best Supporting Actor nod for his turn here, which is just astonishing. Cromwell embodies the man and brings so much depth and so much complexity to a role that could have been taken as mere imitation.
So my final verdict is this – “W.” is pretty damned good. It’s nowhere close to the level of Stone’s earlier Presidential work, “JFK” and “Nixon”, but the film stands on its own. I wish Stone had maybe taken a little more time to develop the project and I wish that he had spent a little more attention to those periods of the Presidency that he left out, but for such a quick production, he did a fine job. Imagine what he could have done with another year. The one thing I didn’t want was a film that painted the man like a moron for two and a half hours. I hate the man more than anyone else on the planet, but I’ve seen the Bush-isms thing one time too many. I found myself not feeling sympathy for the man, personally, but understanding how others could. It at least sheds a little more light on his motives and reasons for doing what he did. “W.” is being hailed by some and beaten up by others and I found myself in the middle, leaning more towards ‘hailing’. It’s not a perfect film. It’s not an even handed film, per se. But it’s an entertaining film. And it’s leaps and bounds better than the last couple of Oliver Stone films. He’s not officially back, but well on his way.
Josh Brolin (George W. Bush)
Elizabeth Banks (Laura Bush)
James Cromwell (George H.W. Bush)
Ellen Burstyn (Barbara Bush)
Toby Jones (Karl Rove)
Richard Dreyfuss (Dick Cheney)
Jeffrey Wright (Colin Powell)
Scott Glenn (Donald Rumsfeld)
Thandie Newton (Condaleeza Rice)
Dennis Boutsikaris (Paul Wolfowitz)
Bruce McGill (George Tenant)
Rob Corddry (Ari Fleischer)
Ioan Gruffudd (Tony Blair)
Stacy Keach (Earle Hudd)
Noah Wyle (Don Evans)
Director: Oliver Stone
RATED PG-13
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
CITY OF EMBER Film Critique
I bet Macaulay Culkin could have figured it out sooner.
Whatever happened to the ‘event’ directors? Filmmakers like Steven Spielberg, Robert Zemeckis and Ivan Reitman spent years making large-scale adventure pictures that would always start out as must-see entertainment for the year. You could always count on plenty of special effects, plenty of sight gags and plenty of chases and tumbles and explosions and death-defying acts. This style of filmmaking was at its peak in the 1980's, with Spielberg using his name recognition to value-up just about every memorable picture to come about, from “The Goonies” to “Back to the Future”. We don’t see films like that anymore. These days, indie cinema is where it’s at. Films that cost less than a Toyota to produce are automatically given more credibility than a film that costs 10,000 Toyotas to produce. Why? It’s the public perception of what makes a film great. Personally, it doesn’t matter to me whether a film costs $100,000 or $100,000,000 – it’s the quality of the story and the execution of that story that matters. Spielberg has been defying those odds for years and years, and I miss his brand of ‘event’ filmmaking. “City of Ember” is a throwback to those days when popcorn value meant just as much as ‘indie street cred’. It’s a film that strives to be larger than it can be, and it suffers for that – but it still manages to pack in some adventure.
Based on the popular book by Jeanne Duprau, “City of Ember” starts off at the end of the world as we know it – we assume from nuclear devastation. A group of people known as ‘The Builders’ have constructed an elaborate underground city that they have programmed to sustain life for 200 years, hoping that the fallout will have ended by then. Then place a secret set of instructions in a metal case and pass it down from mayor to mayor, over the years. Along the way, however, the citizens of Ember – the city they created – lose touch with their past and the case gets misplaced. Flash forward 200 years and the large generator that powers Ember is slowly starting to fail, causing serious blackouts all over the city. Doon (Harry Treadaway) thinks he knows how to fix it, but is afraid he would be given anything close to the generator on Assignment Day, which is when the town’s mayor (Bill Murray) draws jobs out of a hat for the kids. Doon’s dad (Tim Robbins) wants his son to be happy, but doesn’t like it when he starts talking about leaving Ember. Lina (Saoirse Ronan) has found the misplaced metal case and is trying to solve its mystery, with the help of Doon, hoping it will unlock the secrets of Ember’s past and allow them to have a future. Toby Jones stars as the mayor’s assistant and Marianne Jean-Baptiste as a greenhouse owner who tries to help Doon and Lina as best she can. The last chunk of this film deals with Doon and Lina discovering the secrets of Ember and finding their way out. Other notable supporting characters include the great Martin Landau as Sul, a Pipeworks worker and Mary Kay Place as a religious nut.
There is so much story here, the film really needed to be longer. Some of the cuts seem a little forced and you have to think that director Gil Kenan wasn’t able to elaborate on a lot of what he wanted to because of time constrictions. “City of Ember” could have easily been either a three hour film or a two or three part series of films. I think it deserved that kind of consideration because the story is there and it works and it’s very entertaining. There is nothing wrong on that end. What damages the film is the last third of the picture, which turns from compelling science fiction film to a ride at DisneyWorld. The opening half-hour of this film was flawless and it really sucked me into the story and into the lives of these characters. Slowly, along the way, it loses us, through one CGI-induced chase sequence after another. We were given such a gorgeous set design and such a colorful set of characters – it’s a shame they weren’t put to better use. Bill Murray is hysterical as the seedy mayor of Ember; Martin Landau is wonderful as Sul, the crusty old worker who does his job and nothing more; and Tim Robbins as the curious yet cautious father. And there were so many neat little tidbits here and there that helped jazz up the visuals. I love how the messengers are used in the film and I loved how Lina plays the answering machine tape for comfort. Maybe if Kenan had made the film a little darker and played up the science fiction elements more, it might have been a more solid effort and not shifted into a rollercoaster at the end of the picture. Or, maybe there is a better cut of this film out there and the studios just hacked and shredded it to pieces.
It would seem that this story deserves a darker adaptation. The themes themselves are somewhat frightening. We can only assume Ember’s existence is the result of nuclear devastation and we can only assume that, apart from the people in Ember – everyone else is dead. These are dark themes for a children’s film and book and maybe it would have served the material better to push towards a PG-13 rating instead and just go for it. I wanted to see more attention paid to the toll of the blackouts on the citizens. I wanted to see more dissension once Doon and Lina tried to escape – more with the townspeople disbelieving them and trying to keep them from leaving. I wanted that set of instructions to be a little more difficult to figure out. Everything just fell together a little too easily at the end of the film and we’re left wondering what has kept someone from figuring any of this out before. I know there was a lack of curiosity in the city while everything was working right, but you have to think that some of these citizens had to be pretty intelligent. Why couldn’t Lina’s father figure out what the stuff inside the box meant? There are a lot of these questions that could have been answered with a more mature tackling of the subject matter. If the rest of the film had matched the first half-hour of the film, it would easily be one of the best of the year.
So, there we have it – an entertaining film that could have been so much more. It disappoints me because I think Gil Kenan is one of those ‘event’ filmmakers I mentioned earlier. He has the same eye for that stuff as Spielberg and Zemeckis did. “Monster House” was a fine example of that and I was hoping for big things from “City of Ember”. And I still think Kenan has some tricks up his sleeves. Maybe the studio hacked his original vision to death? This film was in limbo for a while and its release has been delayed a little, so maybe that’s the explanation. I would rather blame a studio editor than a competent director any day of the week. “City of Ember” was thrilling and the first half-hour alone is enough for me to recommend the film, but I wanted more from this picture and was not satisfied with how everything just kind of fell together at the end. The film bombed at the box office this past weekend, but it didn’t deserve that. I think younger kids would definitely enjoy this picture and I think it’s better than a lot of junk you probably let them see. “City of Ember” started off bright, but burned out by the end. It needed more gasoline.
Harry Treadaway (Doon Harrow)
Saoirse Ronan (Lina Mayfleet)
Tim Robbins (Loris Harrow)
Bill Murray (Mayor Cole)
Toby Jones (Barton Snode)
Martin Landau (Sul)
Mary Kay Place (Mrs. Murdo)
Director: Gil Kenan
RATED PG
Whatever happened to the ‘event’ directors? Filmmakers like Steven Spielberg, Robert Zemeckis and Ivan Reitman spent years making large-scale adventure pictures that would always start out as must-see entertainment for the year. You could always count on plenty of special effects, plenty of sight gags and plenty of chases and tumbles and explosions and death-defying acts. This style of filmmaking was at its peak in the 1980's, with Spielberg using his name recognition to value-up just about every memorable picture to come about, from “The Goonies” to “Back to the Future”. We don’t see films like that anymore. These days, indie cinema is where it’s at. Films that cost less than a Toyota to produce are automatically given more credibility than a film that costs 10,000 Toyotas to produce. Why? It’s the public perception of what makes a film great. Personally, it doesn’t matter to me whether a film costs $100,000 or $100,000,000 – it’s the quality of the story and the execution of that story that matters. Spielberg has been defying those odds for years and years, and I miss his brand of ‘event’ filmmaking. “City of Ember” is a throwback to those days when popcorn value meant just as much as ‘indie street cred’. It’s a film that strives to be larger than it can be, and it suffers for that – but it still manages to pack in some adventure.
Based on the popular book by Jeanne Duprau, “City of Ember” starts off at the end of the world as we know it – we assume from nuclear devastation. A group of people known as ‘The Builders’ have constructed an elaborate underground city that they have programmed to sustain life for 200 years, hoping that the fallout will have ended by then. Then place a secret set of instructions in a metal case and pass it down from mayor to mayor, over the years. Along the way, however, the citizens of Ember – the city they created – lose touch with their past and the case gets misplaced. Flash forward 200 years and the large generator that powers Ember is slowly starting to fail, causing serious blackouts all over the city. Doon (Harry Treadaway) thinks he knows how to fix it, but is afraid he would be given anything close to the generator on Assignment Day, which is when the town’s mayor (Bill Murray) draws jobs out of a hat for the kids. Doon’s dad (Tim Robbins) wants his son to be happy, but doesn’t like it when he starts talking about leaving Ember. Lina (Saoirse Ronan) has found the misplaced metal case and is trying to solve its mystery, with the help of Doon, hoping it will unlock the secrets of Ember’s past and allow them to have a future. Toby Jones stars as the mayor’s assistant and Marianne Jean-Baptiste as a greenhouse owner who tries to help Doon and Lina as best she can. The last chunk of this film deals with Doon and Lina discovering the secrets of Ember and finding their way out. Other notable supporting characters include the great Martin Landau as Sul, a Pipeworks worker and Mary Kay Place as a religious nut.
There is so much story here, the film really needed to be longer. Some of the cuts seem a little forced and you have to think that director Gil Kenan wasn’t able to elaborate on a lot of what he wanted to because of time constrictions. “City of Ember” could have easily been either a three hour film or a two or three part series of films. I think it deserved that kind of consideration because the story is there and it works and it’s very entertaining. There is nothing wrong on that end. What damages the film is the last third of the picture, which turns from compelling science fiction film to a ride at DisneyWorld. The opening half-hour of this film was flawless and it really sucked me into the story and into the lives of these characters. Slowly, along the way, it loses us, through one CGI-induced chase sequence after another. We were given such a gorgeous set design and such a colorful set of characters – it’s a shame they weren’t put to better use. Bill Murray is hysterical as the seedy mayor of Ember; Martin Landau is wonderful as Sul, the crusty old worker who does his job and nothing more; and Tim Robbins as the curious yet cautious father. And there were so many neat little tidbits here and there that helped jazz up the visuals. I love how the messengers are used in the film and I loved how Lina plays the answering machine tape for comfort. Maybe if Kenan had made the film a little darker and played up the science fiction elements more, it might have been a more solid effort and not shifted into a rollercoaster at the end of the picture. Or, maybe there is a better cut of this film out there and the studios just hacked and shredded it to pieces.
It would seem that this story deserves a darker adaptation. The themes themselves are somewhat frightening. We can only assume Ember’s existence is the result of nuclear devastation and we can only assume that, apart from the people in Ember – everyone else is dead. These are dark themes for a children’s film and book and maybe it would have served the material better to push towards a PG-13 rating instead and just go for it. I wanted to see more attention paid to the toll of the blackouts on the citizens. I wanted to see more dissension once Doon and Lina tried to escape – more with the townspeople disbelieving them and trying to keep them from leaving. I wanted that set of instructions to be a little more difficult to figure out. Everything just fell together a little too easily at the end of the film and we’re left wondering what has kept someone from figuring any of this out before. I know there was a lack of curiosity in the city while everything was working right, but you have to think that some of these citizens had to be pretty intelligent. Why couldn’t Lina’s father figure out what the stuff inside the box meant? There are a lot of these questions that could have been answered with a more mature tackling of the subject matter. If the rest of the film had matched the first half-hour of the film, it would easily be one of the best of the year.
So, there we have it – an entertaining film that could have been so much more. It disappoints me because I think Gil Kenan is one of those ‘event’ filmmakers I mentioned earlier. He has the same eye for that stuff as Spielberg and Zemeckis did. “Monster House” was a fine example of that and I was hoping for big things from “City of Ember”. And I still think Kenan has some tricks up his sleeves. Maybe the studio hacked his original vision to death? This film was in limbo for a while and its release has been delayed a little, so maybe that’s the explanation. I would rather blame a studio editor than a competent director any day of the week. “City of Ember” was thrilling and the first half-hour alone is enough for me to recommend the film, but I wanted more from this picture and was not satisfied with how everything just kind of fell together at the end. The film bombed at the box office this past weekend, but it didn’t deserve that. I think younger kids would definitely enjoy this picture and I think it’s better than a lot of junk you probably let them see. “City of Ember” started off bright, but burned out by the end. It needed more gasoline.
Harry Treadaway (Doon Harrow)
Saoirse Ronan (Lina Mayfleet)
Tim Robbins (Loris Harrow)
Bill Murray (Mayor Cole)
Toby Jones (Barton Snode)
Martin Landau (Sul)
Mary Kay Place (Mrs. Murdo)
Director: Gil Kenan
RATED PG
Monday, October 13, 2008
NICK AND NORAH'S INFINITE PLAYLIST Film Critique
I've said it once and I'll say it again -- Adorkable.
As a film critic, I look for magic. I think every film critic and movie goer does – it’s just that the magic differs from person to person. You look for that one film that does something to you that no other film can do – that one film that stirs emotions and feelings that no other film can. This magic is what characterizes a persons taste in films. It decides what they see and dictates what they like and what they don’t. I remember seeing “Pleasantville” for the first time and getting that feeling, that rare and special feeling that I was watching something truly remarkable – something that made me laugh and cry and smile throughout – something that moved me. I remember seeing “Magnolia” for the first time and acquiring those same emotional attachments. It has been a while since I’ve had one of those feelings and one of those connections. Last year was a fantastic year, on the whole, for cinema – but it didn’t produce a film like that. As good as “There Will Be Blood” was, and as fantastic as “Juno” turned out to be – neither made me feel that special feeling. And, it looked as if 2008 was going to be another disappointing year, in that regard. Then, however, I stumbled into a quaint little picture called “Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist”. I knew very little about the film other than (01) it was adapted from a popular book by Rachel Cohn; and (02) it featured music from some of my absolute favorite indie rock bands. That was enough to get me into the theatre. By the end of the film, I was a junkie. I had been given my fix and I wanted more. It’s difficult to explain how much I enjoyed the film, and the best adjective I could use would be ‘magical’.
We meet Nick (Michael Cera) as he is leaving a voicemail message to Tris (Alexis Dziena), his ex-girlfriend and one of the hottest girls around. They dated for six months and when she broke up with him, it basically sapped his will to live. Nick is persuaded by his friends and band mates, Thom (Aaron Yoo) and Dev (Rafi Gavron), to go with them into New York City to try and catch the band Where’s Fluffy?, an underground indie band that thrives on making it difficult for their fans to find them. Once there, Nick bumps into Norah (Kat Dennings), who has secretly been in love with he and his mix tapes for a while, but just never had a face to put with a mix. The two meet in a very awkward fashion and then end up scouring the city looking for Caroline (Ari Graynor), Norah’s best friend – a drunk girl walking the city with her gum and her haunts. Most of the film deals with Nick and Norah wandering the city, looking for Caroline, with the help of the boys in the van. Nick is forced to deal with his continued feelings for Tris and Norah is forced to deal with a long time boyfriend who only seems to want her for what her father can do for him. The two connect on a deeper level as the night wears on, and we already know what the outcome’should’ be long before the two characters know what the outcome ‘will’ be. “Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist” is just a quiet and sophisticated little movie about two people who just need a little help getting together. It’s a film about relationships, friendship and all those other ‘ships’ we take for granted.
This film reminded me of several other films, but in spirit only. “Before Sunrise” is the first that comes to mind. Both films deal with a man and a woman wandering the city, trying to get to know one another, not knowing whether the connection they share will last any longer than a few hours. It also reminded me of “The Science of Sleep” a little – this whimsical and almost dreamlike look at a budding relationship. “Nick and Norah” has that same kind of quirky bravado and there is this tenderness in the relationship in both films that really comes across. Credit director Peter Sollett for crafting an intimate and fragile portrait in the midst of the indie comedy and indie rock music. He really does take these two characters and make the audience root for them. When you like so many of the characters in a film, you know the writer and director have done something right. Such was the case with “Nick and Norah”, the most likable assortment of characters 2008 has seen. And I also want to comment on the cinematography, courtesy of Tom Richmond. There are some shots in this film that really capture the magic of New York City at night. The whole film captures what it’s like for young people growing up in and around New York City and how the city itself really becomes a character in their own lives. These lives are almost entirely soundtracked by some of the best indie rock bands around, including Band of Horses, Modest Mouse and countless others. There are very few scenes in the film where you don’t have a song playing in the background and that helps weave together this tapestry of charm and tenderness that is so rampant.
At the heart of “Nick and Norah” are the two lead performances from Michael Cera and Kat Dennings. Michael Cera has become the master of playing these quiet, shy and quirky little guys you just want to hug for an hour. His delivery is impeccable and there is definitely no other actor out there right now doing what he is doing. He can take the most random line ever and turn it into something so sweet and so meaningful. I don’t know that he gets all the credit he deserves. And, Kat Dennings is a nice counter for Cera, proving herself in every scene. She has that same kind of awkward charm and she has some real chops when the scenes demand. The colorful supporting cast includes two very entertaining performances from Aaron Yoo and Rafi Gavron as Nick’s two gay band mates looking for the perfect names for their musical assault. And Ari Graynor is hysterical as Norah’s alcoholic best friend, Caroline, on whom most of the action revolves. Also look out for cameos from Seth Meyers, Andy Samberg and Jay Baruchel, in various roles. You get the feeling during this picture that all of these talented people were brought together by what had to be either their love for the novel or their appreciation of how well the novel was adapted to script. I went straight to Barnes and Noble after the film and picked up the book and plan to start reading it very soon. Typically, the book is better than the film. I don’t see how that could be possible.
In case you haven’t figured it out yet, “Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist” is my favorite film of this year, and it’s the first film in a long, long while to leave me with that ‘magic’ that I always look for in a motion picture. It left me smiling – and what better compliment is there? There are so many films you see in the year – so many films that simply do their jobs and service the audience and don’t try for anything other than keeping our attentions for a couple of hours. It takes a special film to attempt to keep our attentions and inject a little life into what the audience is seeing. “Nick and Norah” might not have been trying for all of that, but it definitely succeeded. I plan on seeing this one in theatres a couple more times and I am certain it will not fall off my top ten list by the end of the year, and it very well may still find itself sitting at the top. If you loved the honesty and the tenderness of “Before Sunrise”; if you loved the quirkiness and randomness of “Juno”; if you loved the feeling of whimsy and chaos of “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” – you should absolutely fall in love with “Nick and Norah”. It’s the best film of the year – day and night.
Michael Cera (Nick)
Kat Dennings (Norah)
Aaron Yoo (Thom)
Rafi Gavron (Dev)
Ari Graynor (Caroline)
Alexis Dziena (Tris)
Jonathan B. Wright (Lathario)
Jay Baruchel (Tal)
Director: Peter Sollett
RATED PG-13
As a film critic, I look for magic. I think every film critic and movie goer does – it’s just that the magic differs from person to person. You look for that one film that does something to you that no other film can do – that one film that stirs emotions and feelings that no other film can. This magic is what characterizes a persons taste in films. It decides what they see and dictates what they like and what they don’t. I remember seeing “Pleasantville” for the first time and getting that feeling, that rare and special feeling that I was watching something truly remarkable – something that made me laugh and cry and smile throughout – something that moved me. I remember seeing “Magnolia” for the first time and acquiring those same emotional attachments. It has been a while since I’ve had one of those feelings and one of those connections. Last year was a fantastic year, on the whole, for cinema – but it didn’t produce a film like that. As good as “There Will Be Blood” was, and as fantastic as “Juno” turned out to be – neither made me feel that special feeling. And, it looked as if 2008 was going to be another disappointing year, in that regard. Then, however, I stumbled into a quaint little picture called “Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist”. I knew very little about the film other than (01) it was adapted from a popular book by Rachel Cohn; and (02) it featured music from some of my absolute favorite indie rock bands. That was enough to get me into the theatre. By the end of the film, I was a junkie. I had been given my fix and I wanted more. It’s difficult to explain how much I enjoyed the film, and the best adjective I could use would be ‘magical’.
We meet Nick (Michael Cera) as he is leaving a voicemail message to Tris (Alexis Dziena), his ex-girlfriend and one of the hottest girls around. They dated for six months and when she broke up with him, it basically sapped his will to live. Nick is persuaded by his friends and band mates, Thom (Aaron Yoo) and Dev (Rafi Gavron), to go with them into New York City to try and catch the band Where’s Fluffy?, an underground indie band that thrives on making it difficult for their fans to find them. Once there, Nick bumps into Norah (Kat Dennings), who has secretly been in love with he and his mix tapes for a while, but just never had a face to put with a mix. The two meet in a very awkward fashion and then end up scouring the city looking for Caroline (Ari Graynor), Norah’s best friend – a drunk girl walking the city with her gum and her haunts. Most of the film deals with Nick and Norah wandering the city, looking for Caroline, with the help of the boys in the van. Nick is forced to deal with his continued feelings for Tris and Norah is forced to deal with a long time boyfriend who only seems to want her for what her father can do for him. The two connect on a deeper level as the night wears on, and we already know what the outcome’should’ be long before the two characters know what the outcome ‘will’ be. “Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist” is just a quiet and sophisticated little movie about two people who just need a little help getting together. It’s a film about relationships, friendship and all those other ‘ships’ we take for granted.
This film reminded me of several other films, but in spirit only. “Before Sunrise” is the first that comes to mind. Both films deal with a man and a woman wandering the city, trying to get to know one another, not knowing whether the connection they share will last any longer than a few hours. It also reminded me of “The Science of Sleep” a little – this whimsical and almost dreamlike look at a budding relationship. “Nick and Norah” has that same kind of quirky bravado and there is this tenderness in the relationship in both films that really comes across. Credit director Peter Sollett for crafting an intimate and fragile portrait in the midst of the indie comedy and indie rock music. He really does take these two characters and make the audience root for them. When you like so many of the characters in a film, you know the writer and director have done something right. Such was the case with “Nick and Norah”, the most likable assortment of characters 2008 has seen. And I also want to comment on the cinematography, courtesy of Tom Richmond. There are some shots in this film that really capture the magic of New York City at night. The whole film captures what it’s like for young people growing up in and around New York City and how the city itself really becomes a character in their own lives. These lives are almost entirely soundtracked by some of the best indie rock bands around, including Band of Horses, Modest Mouse and countless others. There are very few scenes in the film where you don’t have a song playing in the background and that helps weave together this tapestry of charm and tenderness that is so rampant.
At the heart of “Nick and Norah” are the two lead performances from Michael Cera and Kat Dennings. Michael Cera has become the master of playing these quiet, shy and quirky little guys you just want to hug for an hour. His delivery is impeccable and there is definitely no other actor out there right now doing what he is doing. He can take the most random line ever and turn it into something so sweet and so meaningful. I don’t know that he gets all the credit he deserves. And, Kat Dennings is a nice counter for Cera, proving herself in every scene. She has that same kind of awkward charm and she has some real chops when the scenes demand. The colorful supporting cast includes two very entertaining performances from Aaron Yoo and Rafi Gavron as Nick’s two gay band mates looking for the perfect names for their musical assault. And Ari Graynor is hysterical as Norah’s alcoholic best friend, Caroline, on whom most of the action revolves. Also look out for cameos from Seth Meyers, Andy Samberg and Jay Baruchel, in various roles. You get the feeling during this picture that all of these talented people were brought together by what had to be either their love for the novel or their appreciation of how well the novel was adapted to script. I went straight to Barnes and Noble after the film and picked up the book and plan to start reading it very soon. Typically, the book is better than the film. I don’t see how that could be possible.
In case you haven’t figured it out yet, “Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist” is my favorite film of this year, and it’s the first film in a long, long while to leave me with that ‘magic’ that I always look for in a motion picture. It left me smiling – and what better compliment is there? There are so many films you see in the year – so many films that simply do their jobs and service the audience and don’t try for anything other than keeping our attentions for a couple of hours. It takes a special film to attempt to keep our attentions and inject a little life into what the audience is seeing. “Nick and Norah” might not have been trying for all of that, but it definitely succeeded. I plan on seeing this one in theatres a couple more times and I am certain it will not fall off my top ten list by the end of the year, and it very well may still find itself sitting at the top. If you loved the honesty and the tenderness of “Before Sunrise”; if you loved the quirkiness and randomness of “Juno”; if you loved the feeling of whimsy and chaos of “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” – you should absolutely fall in love with “Nick and Norah”. It’s the best film of the year – day and night.
Michael Cera (Nick)
Kat Dennings (Norah)
Aaron Yoo (Thom)
Rafi Gavron (Dev)
Ari Graynor (Caroline)
Alexis Dziena (Tris)
Jonathan B. Wright (Lathario)
Jay Baruchel (Tal)
Director: Peter Sollett
RATED PG-13
Saturday, October 11, 2008
QUARANTINE Film Critique
Please don't -- he's too cute to die!
Americans just don’t seem to understand horror anymore. Most of the quality and substantive work in the horror genre, these days, is coming from France, Sweden, Spain and England. Directors like Neil Marshall, Guillermo del Toro and Alexandre Aja have made big splashes, but their brands of horror are not rooted in the mythos of American horror. Americans always want to take something new and hot from overseas and give it the bastardized ‘States treatment’. The phenomenal vampire film from Sweden, “Let the Right One In”, was recently announced to be remade by Matt Reeves, the jackass who directed “Cloverfield”, an utter disappointment. And, now, the recent Spanish horror film, “Rec”, has been turned into “Quarantine”, the latest horror picture from Screen Gems that has been trailering for months and months. Well, the joke’s on me. “Quarantine” was good. In fact, it was damned good. I won’t say it was as good as “Rec” because it wasn’t, but it was far better than any other remake I have seen and it was one of the better horror films of the year. And, believe me – I was not expecting to feel this way. I was expected to be disappointed. Why? It might have something to do with the fact that the trailer shows the final shot from the film. How in God’s name can you show audiences the final shot from the film in a trailer? This aside, the film was a damned good entertainment features plenty of jumps and some nice visuals.
This picture is shot in the documentary style format, like “Cloverfield” and “The Blair Witch Project” among others. Angela (Jennifer Carpenter) is a reporter who, along with her best friend and cameraman, Scott (Steve Harris), is assigned to shadow a group of firemen for the night, the most prevalent being Jake (Jay Hernandez) and Fletcher (Jonathon Schaech). After a few minutes of soaking up what they do at the station, they are sent out on a call to an old apartment building where a woman was heard screaming. Once inside, the firemen, the reporter and cameraman, and a group of tenants from the building find themselves trapped inside with injured people who seem to be getting sicker and sicker and angrier and angrier. When they try to leave, they are told they cannot do so, as they have been locked down until the CDC can come in and investigate. As they attempt to deal with their injured parties, people start disappearing and their fates look grim as the surrounding authorities refuse to let anyone leave the premises.
I know what you’re thinking – haven’t I seen this before? You probably have. While the film is not a total copy of another film, it borrows bits and pieces from other horror films like “28 Days Later”, “The Blair Witch Project”, “The Descent” and even “Diary of the Dead”. But – that said – so did the original film on which “Quarantine” was based. But what horror film is totally original these days, huh? What makes “Quarantine” work is the sense of claustrophobia that ensues the picture. We are introduced to this group of characters and we watch them interact with one another, handle stressful situations and deal with impending death all around. The death scenes are graphic, just bloody enough and jump-tastic. The audience with which I saw the film was jumping and covering their eyes and screaming at the right moments. That’s what a horror film is supposed to do. And, the visual style of the film was quite enjoyable. Usually, the handheld format can get a little so-so, but they managed to sustain it for a while, complete with the camera being used as a weapon and seeing random things out of the corner of your eyes that add more hysteria to the picture.
It also helps that the performances in the film are better than your normal horror film. Jennifer Carpenter does a fine job as Angela – you might remember her as Emily Rose from “The Exorcism of Emily Rose” or from her role on “Dexter”. Steve Harris, though rarely seen, is the voice behind the camera. Jay Hernandez – officially one of the hottest men on the planet – does another fine job as a fireman – he always seems to play firemen or policemen. Jonathon Schaech was underused in his role, but did a fine job with what we saw. And we get a host of colorful and well cast actors in supporting roles, including Greg Germann and Denis O’Hare.
Not much else to say about “Quarantine”. It was a damned entertaining horror film and one of the best I have seen this year. I would encourage you to see “Rec” first and then “Quarantine” so you can see that the latter isn’t as bad as you would expect it to be, judging from the original. October is the month for horror films and it’s off to a fine start with this one.
Jennifer Carpenter (Angela)
Steve Harris (Scott)
Jay Hernandez (Jake)
Jonathon Schaech (Fletcher)
Greg Germann (Lawrence)
Columbus Short (Danny)
Denis O’Hare (Randy)
Director: John Erick Dowdle
RATED R
Americans just don’t seem to understand horror anymore. Most of the quality and substantive work in the horror genre, these days, is coming from France, Sweden, Spain and England. Directors like Neil Marshall, Guillermo del Toro and Alexandre Aja have made big splashes, but their brands of horror are not rooted in the mythos of American horror. Americans always want to take something new and hot from overseas and give it the bastardized ‘States treatment’. The phenomenal vampire film from Sweden, “Let the Right One In”, was recently announced to be remade by Matt Reeves, the jackass who directed “Cloverfield”, an utter disappointment. And, now, the recent Spanish horror film, “Rec”, has been turned into “Quarantine”, the latest horror picture from Screen Gems that has been trailering for months and months. Well, the joke’s on me. “Quarantine” was good. In fact, it was damned good. I won’t say it was as good as “Rec” because it wasn’t, but it was far better than any other remake I have seen and it was one of the better horror films of the year. And, believe me – I was not expecting to feel this way. I was expected to be disappointed. Why? It might have something to do with the fact that the trailer shows the final shot from the film. How in God’s name can you show audiences the final shot from the film in a trailer? This aside, the film was a damned good entertainment features plenty of jumps and some nice visuals.
This picture is shot in the documentary style format, like “Cloverfield” and “The Blair Witch Project” among others. Angela (Jennifer Carpenter) is a reporter who, along with her best friend and cameraman, Scott (Steve Harris), is assigned to shadow a group of firemen for the night, the most prevalent being Jake (Jay Hernandez) and Fletcher (Jonathon Schaech). After a few minutes of soaking up what they do at the station, they are sent out on a call to an old apartment building where a woman was heard screaming. Once inside, the firemen, the reporter and cameraman, and a group of tenants from the building find themselves trapped inside with injured people who seem to be getting sicker and sicker and angrier and angrier. When they try to leave, they are told they cannot do so, as they have been locked down until the CDC can come in and investigate. As they attempt to deal with their injured parties, people start disappearing and their fates look grim as the surrounding authorities refuse to let anyone leave the premises.
I know what you’re thinking – haven’t I seen this before? You probably have. While the film is not a total copy of another film, it borrows bits and pieces from other horror films like “28 Days Later”, “The Blair Witch Project”, “The Descent” and even “Diary of the Dead”. But – that said – so did the original film on which “Quarantine” was based. But what horror film is totally original these days, huh? What makes “Quarantine” work is the sense of claustrophobia that ensues the picture. We are introduced to this group of characters and we watch them interact with one another, handle stressful situations and deal with impending death all around. The death scenes are graphic, just bloody enough and jump-tastic. The audience with which I saw the film was jumping and covering their eyes and screaming at the right moments. That’s what a horror film is supposed to do. And, the visual style of the film was quite enjoyable. Usually, the handheld format can get a little so-so, but they managed to sustain it for a while, complete with the camera being used as a weapon and seeing random things out of the corner of your eyes that add more hysteria to the picture.
It also helps that the performances in the film are better than your normal horror film. Jennifer Carpenter does a fine job as Angela – you might remember her as Emily Rose from “The Exorcism of Emily Rose” or from her role on “Dexter”. Steve Harris, though rarely seen, is the voice behind the camera. Jay Hernandez – officially one of the hottest men on the planet – does another fine job as a fireman – he always seems to play firemen or policemen. Jonathon Schaech was underused in his role, but did a fine job with what we saw. And we get a host of colorful and well cast actors in supporting roles, including Greg Germann and Denis O’Hare.
Not much else to say about “Quarantine”. It was a damned entertaining horror film and one of the best I have seen this year. I would encourage you to see “Rec” first and then “Quarantine” so you can see that the latter isn’t as bad as you would expect it to be, judging from the original. October is the month for horror films and it’s off to a fine start with this one.
Jennifer Carpenter (Angela)
Steve Harris (Scott)
Jay Hernandez (Jake)
Jonathon Schaech (Fletcher)
Greg Germann (Lawrence)
Columbus Short (Danny)
Denis O’Hare (Randy)
Director: John Erick Dowdle
RATED R
HUMBOLDT COUNTY Film Critique
Since when did "Indy Jones" goes "Indie Cinema"?
Aren’t you tired of those damned quirky independent comedies? Films like “Little Miss Sunshine” and “Napoleon Dynamite” brought attention to a whole new class of slightly offbeat, entertaining little pictures, continued by the likes of “Juno”, “Lars and the Real Girl” and “Hamlet 2" as a recent example. The latest in this long line of low-budget hush-hush comedy is “Humboldt County”, one of the most straight-forward quirky comedies I have seen in a while, and one of the best. I saw this film during the 2008 Sidewalk Moving Picture Festival, but it’s currently in limited release and can be absorbed by the masses – if those masses happen to live near one of the few theatres carrying it. The title, “Humboldt County”, refers to the county in California where the crux of the action in the film occurs. It’s one of those films that takes a colorful assortment of eccentric and unbelievable characters and somehow injects some real warmth and humor into their lives, and our perceptions of their lives. Halfway through the film I remember thinking to myself – “Isn’t it nice to see a film that isn’t making any statements or taking any risks?” – the film just “is”. I don’t know if the film will make it on my end of the year list, but it has a good shot of an honorable mention.
The film opens with Peter (Jeremy Strong) being told by his father/professor (Peter Bogdanovich) that he is not going to pass him, thus preventing him from getting a prestigious residency. Peter then hooks up with Bogart (Fairuza Balk), a young singer and actress who convinces Peter to go with her to her home in Humboldt County. When Peter arrives, he is introduced to her strange and eccentric family of pot growers and pot dealers. You see – Humboldt County is made out to be the marijuana capital of the West Coast. Brad Dourif stars as Jack and Frances Conroy as Rosie, the two heads of the family, with Chris Messina as Max (their son) and Madison Davenport as Charity (their young granddaughter). What Peter thinks is an overnight trip turns into an extended stay as he always seems to miss the bus and kept over for another night. He eventually warms up to the family and they take him in as a surrogate, with Peter helping to harvest the crop. Towards the end of the film, the Feds become involves as they search for large pot fields and Peter must decide whether to return to his life of normalcy or stay in this new world that he loves so much.
There is nothing flashy or over-zealous about this picture. Everything in “Humboldt County” is quiet and meaningful. The film moves along at a deliberate peace, but never becomes boring. It’s interesting to see a film that takes place almost entirely within the confines of the lives of dealers of growers of marijuana. Knowing that the Feds could come knocking any moment makes the tension very subtle and very internalized. We don’t think anything is going to happen, but we are always aware that it could. The script by Darren Grodsky and Danny Jacobs is just fantastic and really illuminates this world that is unknown to so many. We have intellectual characters who are partaking in illegal activities, knowing the risks and benefits associated with those activities. There are no morons in this film. There are no dullards. Just real people living real lives and trying to keep their real families together. And, there is also an element of acceptance in the film. Peter is longing to be accepted in the mainstream, since his father doesn’t seem to want to. He’s a person who has been living his entire life in a bubble, with everything being plotted out for him. When he finally gets a chance to see the world, he sees what he’s been missing and loves it.
And, like “Little Miss Sunshine” and “Juno”, this film lives and dies by its performances. Jeremy Strong is fantastic here as Peter, a role that requires such abrupt characters juxtapositions that you wonder where this guy’s been on the Hollywood radar? Hopefully, this film will expose him to some wider audiences and some continued success. Frances Conroy is brilliant in her role as the kooky matriarch of the household. Conroy has one scene where she explains what happened to her first husband that is just heartbreaking and the choice to keep the camera on her the entire time was inspired and works brilliantly. Chris Messina delivers a strong performance as Max and really gets some chances to demonstrate his acting chops. Peter Bogdanovich is great, as always, in a role that allows him to relax and just have fun. But, the real standout performance comes from Brad Dourif, a character actor who has been ignored and cast aside for a long time now. Dourif turns in his best work since “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” and deserves Academy Award consideration for his turn here. I think people have forgotten how amazing he is. Hopefully this film will remind movie-goers and casting agents that Dourif is so well liked for a reason.
So – aren’t you tired of those damned quirky independent comedies? If your answer is no, then I firmly suggest you check out “Humboldt County” as soon as possible. If your answer is yes, then I still encourage you to see the film because it’s better than most and different than the rest. There is just always this soft spot in my heart for honest films that tackle subtle subject matter and this film did that. I applaud films that aren’t flashy or gimmicky or full of conceit. I applaud films that take risks that audiences can’t even see on the surface, because they’re emotional ones. “Humboldt County” is that rare breed of independent cinema that pushes the audience towards a place of pure enjoyment that comes from both the quality of the story and the quality of the execution. It’s a sweet, beautiful, original piece of cinema that made me smile. And, in case you missed it, Brad Dourif for Best Supporting Actor, though I doubt the Academy will dig that deep and look that long for a performance this amazing. It will get overlooked. The best ones always do.
Jeremy Strong (Peter)
Brad Dourif (Jack)
Frances Conroy (Rosie)
Chris Messina (Max)
Fairuza Balk (Bogart)
Madison Davenport (Charity)
Peter Bogdanovich (Professor)
Director: Darren Grodsky & Danny Jacobs
RATED R
AND A HALF
Aren’t you tired of those damned quirky independent comedies? Films like “Little Miss Sunshine” and “Napoleon Dynamite” brought attention to a whole new class of slightly offbeat, entertaining little pictures, continued by the likes of “Juno”, “Lars and the Real Girl” and “Hamlet 2" as a recent example. The latest in this long line of low-budget hush-hush comedy is “Humboldt County”, one of the most straight-forward quirky comedies I have seen in a while, and one of the best. I saw this film during the 2008 Sidewalk Moving Picture Festival, but it’s currently in limited release and can be absorbed by the masses – if those masses happen to live near one of the few theatres carrying it. The title, “Humboldt County”, refers to the county in California where the crux of the action in the film occurs. It’s one of those films that takes a colorful assortment of eccentric and unbelievable characters and somehow injects some real warmth and humor into their lives, and our perceptions of their lives. Halfway through the film I remember thinking to myself – “Isn’t it nice to see a film that isn’t making any statements or taking any risks?” – the film just “is”. I don’t know if the film will make it on my end of the year list, but it has a good shot of an honorable mention.
The film opens with Peter (Jeremy Strong) being told by his father/professor (Peter Bogdanovich) that he is not going to pass him, thus preventing him from getting a prestigious residency. Peter then hooks up with Bogart (Fairuza Balk), a young singer and actress who convinces Peter to go with her to her home in Humboldt County. When Peter arrives, he is introduced to her strange and eccentric family of pot growers and pot dealers. You see – Humboldt County is made out to be the marijuana capital of the West Coast. Brad Dourif stars as Jack and Frances Conroy as Rosie, the two heads of the family, with Chris Messina as Max (their son) and Madison Davenport as Charity (their young granddaughter). What Peter thinks is an overnight trip turns into an extended stay as he always seems to miss the bus and kept over for another night. He eventually warms up to the family and they take him in as a surrogate, with Peter helping to harvest the crop. Towards the end of the film, the Feds become involves as they search for large pot fields and Peter must decide whether to return to his life of normalcy or stay in this new world that he loves so much.
There is nothing flashy or over-zealous about this picture. Everything in “Humboldt County” is quiet and meaningful. The film moves along at a deliberate peace, but never becomes boring. It’s interesting to see a film that takes place almost entirely within the confines of the lives of dealers of growers of marijuana. Knowing that the Feds could come knocking any moment makes the tension very subtle and very internalized. We don’t think anything is going to happen, but we are always aware that it could. The script by Darren Grodsky and Danny Jacobs is just fantastic and really illuminates this world that is unknown to so many. We have intellectual characters who are partaking in illegal activities, knowing the risks and benefits associated with those activities. There are no morons in this film. There are no dullards. Just real people living real lives and trying to keep their real families together. And, there is also an element of acceptance in the film. Peter is longing to be accepted in the mainstream, since his father doesn’t seem to want to. He’s a person who has been living his entire life in a bubble, with everything being plotted out for him. When he finally gets a chance to see the world, he sees what he’s been missing and loves it.
And, like “Little Miss Sunshine” and “Juno”, this film lives and dies by its performances. Jeremy Strong is fantastic here as Peter, a role that requires such abrupt characters juxtapositions that you wonder where this guy’s been on the Hollywood radar? Hopefully, this film will expose him to some wider audiences and some continued success. Frances Conroy is brilliant in her role as the kooky matriarch of the household. Conroy has one scene where she explains what happened to her first husband that is just heartbreaking and the choice to keep the camera on her the entire time was inspired and works brilliantly. Chris Messina delivers a strong performance as Max and really gets some chances to demonstrate his acting chops. Peter Bogdanovich is great, as always, in a role that allows him to relax and just have fun. But, the real standout performance comes from Brad Dourif, a character actor who has been ignored and cast aside for a long time now. Dourif turns in his best work since “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” and deserves Academy Award consideration for his turn here. I think people have forgotten how amazing he is. Hopefully this film will remind movie-goers and casting agents that Dourif is so well liked for a reason.
So – aren’t you tired of those damned quirky independent comedies? If your answer is no, then I firmly suggest you check out “Humboldt County” as soon as possible. If your answer is yes, then I still encourage you to see the film because it’s better than most and different than the rest. There is just always this soft spot in my heart for honest films that tackle subtle subject matter and this film did that. I applaud films that aren’t flashy or gimmicky or full of conceit. I applaud films that take risks that audiences can’t even see on the surface, because they’re emotional ones. “Humboldt County” is that rare breed of independent cinema that pushes the audience towards a place of pure enjoyment that comes from both the quality of the story and the quality of the execution. It’s a sweet, beautiful, original piece of cinema that made me smile. And, in case you missed it, Brad Dourif for Best Supporting Actor, though I doubt the Academy will dig that deep and look that long for a performance this amazing. It will get overlooked. The best ones always do.
Jeremy Strong (Peter)
Brad Dourif (Jack)
Frances Conroy (Rosie)
Chris Messina (Max)
Fairuza Balk (Bogart)
Madison Davenport (Charity)
Peter Bogdanovich (Professor)
Director: Darren Grodsky & Danny Jacobs
RATED R
AND A HALF
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
