Year: 2009
Director:Peter Cornwell
Screenplay: Adam Simon, Tim Metcalfe
Starring: Virgina Madsen, Kyle Gallner, Elias Koteas, Amanda Crew
The first half of The Haunting in Connecticut (to be shortened to THIC for this review) is quite effective for a horror film...to a point. The film forgets about building up any type of believable story and focuses it's efforts on jump scares. For a horror film it's not a bad thing. Peter Cornwell's film is filled to the brim with relatively strong "zingers" to get the heart going. I state relatively because THIC relies on amping it's sound and score to scare the viewer as opposed to manipulating the visual.
I'm not found of sound "jumps" because as a viewer I begin to automatically telegraph the jumps. They are no longer a surprise because someone is warning you, nay TELLING you when to jump. THIC does alot of this and it's shame because once again like many films of it's ilk, the film works best when it's quiet. This places THIC in a odd position because it's sacrificed it's narrative for scares, so what we get a large amount of jump scares but a lack of build up. Many won't give a shit and that's fine as the director Peter Cornwell works well on BOO moments, but the tension and threat is lacking and the film loses balance.
But while THIC is uneven in it's first half at least it was bearable. I didn't mind that wasn't too original. However, screenwriters Simon and Metcalfe (writers of the brilliant horror documentary American Nightmare) decide to pile on the cliche for the second half, nabbing the most overused plot points from a whole range of films. You got your Amityvile Horrors, your Exorcists, and your Poltergeists in full glory, shouting out it's cliches while telling viewers that it's based on a true story. All played out with without a hint of irony.
Do you remember what I said about the film having no narrative build up a such? Well it's fine because the screenwriters dump a horrible scene full of exposition in a library (full of extremely handy pieces of story information the characters need) before ending the film with a climax that not only defies plausibility but subjects the audience to the one of the most overused plot points that would have Mary Lambert laughing her ass off. Who is Mary Lambert? IMDB my friends and search for her. She's a director and in looking for her may ruin this films ending although I could see many getting the film very quickly.
So any other points? The performance from Kyle Gallner (who I last saw in a piece of shit horror film called sublime) is a good one, as is Elias Koteas who plays a cancer suffering reverend with a pleasant calm. This performance works as the film is so much more watchable than a more showy, scenery chewing display we usually see. Virgina Madsen appears to be sleepwalking in my opinion, while Amanda Crew is memorable due the fact she's playing a role she's far too old for and is clearly hiding her awesome rack. Sorry for being crass but sometimes you have to call them how you see them.
THIC isn't completely awful as it at least tries to appear to be original in a year which will be filled with remakes, sequels and the like. But those who watch alot of horror films may find the film quite a limp attempt.
Friday, 3 April 2009
Thursday, 2 April 2009
Presidents and Movies
It's almost a third into his first year and still Barrack Obama is still making waves and headlines. His moves has (and will be) under more scrutiny than almost any other leader in the western world for the next four years and it's not just because he's the U.S president.
There's so many opinions on this guy it's unbelievable. I've heard white people say he's not black. I've heard blacks telling other blacks not to vote for him because he's Kenyan and my girlfriend fancies him (I think it's a power thing) But my opinion about Mr President?
I kinda hope his term (or terms) don't go perfectly.
Don't get me wrong, Bush wasn't a great president and the world needs change, however I'm a media man and a selfish one at that and unfortunately due to all the art intimating life rubbish I spend too much time looking into when I watch a film I believe that the more pressure that is bestowed on Mr Obama, then the more (dare I say this) entertaining the cinematic landscape may become.
In the 50's under Truman and Eisenhower we had Cold War paranoia and McCarthyism and classic films such as The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951, Robert Wise) and Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956, Don Sigel) while the 60's brought about the birth of the modern horror movie in Night of the Living Dead (1968, George A Romero) which came about right in the middle of the the civil rights movement which of course had a little bit of help from one JFK and if you can't see why those two go together...watch the end of Romero's debut. in fact Romero was place a black man as the lead of a horror film and was one of the first to do that (if not THE first).
The 70's, Nixon and Vietnam brought about more paranoia with The Conversation (1974, Francis Ford Coppola), Taxi Driver (1976, Martin Scorsese), All the Presidents Men (1976, Alan J. Pakula) as well as bringing a new type of horror to people with films such as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974, Tobe Hooper), Halloween (1978, John Carpenter) in which suddenly Americans realized that if it wasn't The Government after you then it could well be your next door neighbor or even your family just check out The Exorcist (1973, William Friedkin) for instance.
The 70's also brought about the Hollywood new wave as well as the birth of the blockbuster......these things all melded together and their power truly came to prominence in Regan's 80's which propelled the me era and we were battered with the birth of the franchises. To add to this many considered that some of the films they were watching were pushing the Regan agenda subliminally with films such as Friday the 13th (1980, Sean Cunningham) having serial killers killing the promiscuous and the drug addled. There's more about the nineties but you could go on and on about it really. Just type in Regan era films and a slew of websites will explain better than I could.
Bush Snr hasn't had too much said about it in terms of cinema while the Clinton era has mentioned alot about futurism but neither have found there cinema foothold as strongly as George W Bush jr. With the war on terror in high gear The second Bush era has brought about a new age of paranoia with many of the previous decades films being remake with a slant on the Iraq war. While many have rued the amount of remakes that have come through few should be surprised that films such as The Manchurian Candidate (2004, Johnathon Demme), and The Invasion (2007, Oliver Hirschbiegel) made their way on the green lighted list. With this said even original films started making their way to the forefront with titles such as Right at your door (2006, Chris Gorak) playing on peoples post 9/11 fears. This is also the era in which the documentary become popular with Micheal Moore bring forth the two highest grossing documentaries of all time in Bowling for Columbine (2002) and Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)
Horror got in on the game (as it always does) with Eli Roth ripping into images of Guantanamo and America aboard with Hostel (2005). Hostel and it's "torture porn" followers also help bring home invasion back to audiences...Ok I'll stop.
So what about Obama? Will more racially themed films start to crop up? Not likely, even if Will Smith is the only star that can open a bankable movie at the moment. However it's very interesting that Slumdog millionaire won this years Academy Awards over the blatant Oscar bait that was Benjamin Button. I can't see Hollywood climbing over themselves to make a film about the economy, so what next? Personally with Obama being used as an icon for change I can see film heading towards the future once more much like the Clinton era. However the horrible selfish side of me is want the pressure to reach boiling point because unfortunately that's when filmmakers seem to be their most creative.
There's so many opinions on this guy it's unbelievable. I've heard white people say he's not black. I've heard blacks telling other blacks not to vote for him because he's Kenyan and my girlfriend fancies him (I think it's a power thing) But my opinion about Mr President?
I kinda hope his term (or terms) don't go perfectly.
Don't get me wrong, Bush wasn't a great president and the world needs change, however I'm a media man and a selfish one at that and unfortunately due to all the art intimating life rubbish I spend too much time looking into when I watch a film I believe that the more pressure that is bestowed on Mr Obama, then the more (dare I say this) entertaining the cinematic landscape may become.
In the 50's under Truman and Eisenhower we had Cold War paranoia and McCarthyism and classic films such as The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951, Robert Wise) and Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956, Don Sigel) while the 60's brought about the birth of the modern horror movie in Night of the Living Dead (1968, George A Romero) which came about right in the middle of the the civil rights movement which of course had a little bit of help from one JFK and if you can't see why those two go together...watch the end of Romero's debut. in fact Romero was place a black man as the lead of a horror film and was one of the first to do that (if not THE first).
The 70's, Nixon and Vietnam brought about more paranoia with The Conversation (1974, Francis Ford Coppola), Taxi Driver (1976, Martin Scorsese), All the Presidents Men (1976, Alan J. Pakula) as well as bringing a new type of horror to people with films such as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974, Tobe Hooper), Halloween (1978, John Carpenter) in which suddenly Americans realized that if it wasn't The Government after you then it could well be your next door neighbor or even your family just check out The Exorcist (1973, William Friedkin) for instance.
The 70's also brought about the Hollywood new wave as well as the birth of the blockbuster......these things all melded together and their power truly came to prominence in Regan's 80's which propelled the me era and we were battered with the birth of the franchises. To add to this many considered that some of the films they were watching were pushing the Regan agenda subliminally with films such as Friday the 13th (1980, Sean Cunningham) having serial killers killing the promiscuous and the drug addled. There's more about the nineties but you could go on and on about it really. Just type in Regan era films and a slew of websites will explain better than I could.
Bush Snr hasn't had too much said about it in terms of cinema while the Clinton era has mentioned alot about futurism but neither have found there cinema foothold as strongly as George W Bush jr. With the war on terror in high gear The second Bush era has brought about a new age of paranoia with many of the previous decades films being remake with a slant on the Iraq war. While many have rued the amount of remakes that have come through few should be surprised that films such as The Manchurian Candidate (2004, Johnathon Demme), and The Invasion (2007, Oliver Hirschbiegel) made their way on the green lighted list. With this said even original films started making their way to the forefront with titles such as Right at your door (2006, Chris Gorak) playing on peoples post 9/11 fears. This is also the era in which the documentary become popular with Micheal Moore bring forth the two highest grossing documentaries of all time in Bowling for Columbine (2002) and Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)
Horror got in on the game (as it always does) with Eli Roth ripping into images of Guantanamo and America aboard with Hostel (2005). Hostel and it's "torture porn" followers also help bring home invasion back to audiences...Ok I'll stop.
So what about Obama? Will more racially themed films start to crop up? Not likely, even if Will Smith is the only star that can open a bankable movie at the moment. However it's very interesting that Slumdog millionaire won this years Academy Awards over the blatant Oscar bait that was Benjamin Button. I can't see Hollywood climbing over themselves to make a film about the economy, so what next? Personally with Obama being used as an icon for change I can see film heading towards the future once more much like the Clinton era. However the horrible selfish side of me is want the pressure to reach boiling point because unfortunately that's when filmmakers seem to be their most creative.
Sunday, 29 March 2009
WE LUV TRAILERS!
So the "Where the wild things are" trailer has finally been released and it's looking sweet. I don't review kids films for a few reasons but here are the main ones:
Spike Jonez imagination + best selling children's book = film worth seeing.
- Childrens films are review proof: Say anything bad about a kids film and adults don't care....that poor bastard is gonna watch the secret of creampie or whatever....no matter how boring it is.
- Pixar are the only person who seem to give a damn: Although Dreamworks are doing ok, they still believe getting stars in for the voice overs is the right way to go....and thats why Finding Nemo is beautiful movie that panders to childs sense of adventure and keep adults interested and A shark's tale is....well bollocks.
- Kids don't know what's fucking good for them: Your kids are fat for a reason and that reason is sweets and television. Period.
Spike Jonez imagination + best selling children's book = film worth seeing.
Tuesday, 24 March 2009
Review: Duplicity
Year: 2009
Director: Tony Gilroy
Screenplay: Tony Gilroy
Starring: Clive Owen, Julia Roberts
Synopsis is here
Let me praise the performances of the two leads in this film. Let me praise them to high heaven. I applaud the work on display here as throughout Duplicity. While Clive Owen is no Cary Grant, he shows he's almost in the same ballpark and Julia Robert comes out of her semi retirement cocoon to bring about an assured performance which despite her never leaving her comfort zone, shows her clearly in her element having fun. Let me praise these performances as they are engaging to watch! let me praise them as they made me titter, Let me praise these performances....because the rest of the film is shite.
I hate walkouts because you don't see the full movie and while I still young and naive, I still believe you should watch the movie till the end credits just to judge a movie as a whole. We had one walk out during when I saw the film, and while i found that annoying...I could clearly see why they did. Tony Gilroy's film is dull. It shouldn't be, it should be light, frothy and fun, especially after Gilroy's first film; the relatively heavy Micheal Clayton. Everything in the movie points towards this film being a very breezy little flick. From the slickly placed dialogue that rolls off the tounge of the leads, to the many different exotic locations (expect for maybe London lol).
However the film wrongfoots itself by forgeting how light it should be while giving the viewer a plot so basic, that it's not fun to figure out. Within half an hour we know pretty much exactly how the shit is going to go down and except for the last moments of the film; Duplicity does nothing to freshen up it's tired plot points and relies too much on the performances to try and distract you from it's blandness. Problem is when you see right through the plot it's hard to root for these game players no matter how much fun they're having.
When the film finally pulls the rug from under you at the end of the film, it's not clever in anyway because all the plot points before hand have been guessed. from Mcguffin to Patsy, your way ahead of everyone your watching and waiting impatiently to catch up. When the obligatory explanation comes at the end of the scene I could imgine many people merely rolling their eyes and stating in their head "knew that, saw that coming etc" I know I did.
What makes things worse is how transparent it makes the relationship between Clive Owen's Ray and Julia Robert's Claire, the film lays out their character's pathway clearer than the yellow brick road. Dothery had obstacles, Duplicity does not. It's all a bad shallow act. I'm not ruining anything because the directors already told you far too early. I'm not a man who thrives on catching films out with plotholes and the like because once you find them you don't enjoy the film as much. It's no fun when you get too far ahead of the story before the characters but here Gilroy has given you enough shortcuts to allow you a quick sprint to the finish line. As for Roberts and Owen and their watchable displays? They're not even halfway finished the first lap.
Director: Tony Gilroy
Screenplay: Tony Gilroy
Starring: Clive Owen, Julia Roberts
Synopsis is here
Let me praise the performances of the two leads in this film. Let me praise them to high heaven. I applaud the work on display here as throughout Duplicity. While Clive Owen is no Cary Grant, he shows he's almost in the same ballpark and Julia Robert comes out of her semi retirement cocoon to bring about an assured performance which despite her never leaving her comfort zone, shows her clearly in her element having fun. Let me praise these performances as they are engaging to watch! let me praise them as they made me titter, Let me praise these performances....because the rest of the film is shite.
I hate walkouts because you don't see the full movie and while I still young and naive, I still believe you should watch the movie till the end credits just to judge a movie as a whole. We had one walk out during when I saw the film, and while i found that annoying...I could clearly see why they did. Tony Gilroy's film is dull. It shouldn't be, it should be light, frothy and fun, especially after Gilroy's first film; the relatively heavy Micheal Clayton. Everything in the movie points towards this film being a very breezy little flick. From the slickly placed dialogue that rolls off the tounge of the leads, to the many different exotic locations (expect for maybe London lol).
However the film wrongfoots itself by forgeting how light it should be while giving the viewer a plot so basic, that it's not fun to figure out. Within half an hour we know pretty much exactly how the shit is going to go down and except for the last moments of the film; Duplicity does nothing to freshen up it's tired plot points and relies too much on the performances to try and distract you from it's blandness. Problem is when you see right through the plot it's hard to root for these game players no matter how much fun they're having.
When the film finally pulls the rug from under you at the end of the film, it's not clever in anyway because all the plot points before hand have been guessed. from Mcguffin to Patsy, your way ahead of everyone your watching and waiting impatiently to catch up. When the obligatory explanation comes at the end of the scene I could imgine many people merely rolling their eyes and stating in their head "knew that, saw that coming etc" I know I did.
What makes things worse is how transparent it makes the relationship between Clive Owen's Ray and Julia Robert's Claire, the film lays out their character's pathway clearer than the yellow brick road. Dothery had obstacles, Duplicity does not. It's all a bad shallow act. I'm not ruining anything because the directors already told you far too early. I'm not a man who thrives on catching films out with plotholes and the like because once you find them you don't enjoy the film as much. It's no fun when you get too far ahead of the story before the characters but here Gilroy has given you enough shortcuts to allow you a quick sprint to the finish line. As for Roberts and Owen and their watchable displays? They're not even halfway finished the first lap.
Review: Gran Torino
Year: 2008
Director: Clint Eastwood
Starring: Clint Eastwood
Synopsis is here
At first I really wasn't sure I wanted ...to see an elderly Clint Eastwood kicking minority ass up and down his front garden. Being black...I was thinking it's not really my cup of tea. At first glance the film almost comes across as ridiculous, with nearly every other word coming Clint's character (Walt) being an racial slur. A miserable old man who dislikes his own family almost as much than his new "gook" neighbours. He growls at everything he disproves of like DMX on an album remix.
After halfway through the first act....I was beginning to worry that this was some sort of piss take. Clint plays the role as an over the top embodiment of his earlier dirty harry roles and at first the display is amusing bordering on corny, but then something happens, everything clicks in and Eastwood's film becomes an entertaining metaphor for the grand changes happening in America. Walt becomes a representative of the U.S of old, almost reminiscent of John Wayne in The Searchers.
The environment is changing and Walt's not ready to fall in line with it just because a younger generation says so and although Walt is vile bigot, his willingness to stick to his principals is "admirable". But what made Gran Torino so appealing to me was the relationship Walt strikes up with his Eastern neighbours, it's one of compromise. A relationship that isn't perfect and never tries to be, but is pivotal to the enjoyment of the film. Eastwood directs the piece with a message that hits harder than the overt racist lines coming from it's lead. Eastwood's isn't about a shock change of views for anybody but a film about understanding. One that shows that looking at people from a different perspective, can bring about great things within each other.
Gran Torino is shadowed by one performance (we'll get to that) but don't let the messages within the film fly past you. One of the reasons I loved the film is that while the racist is the person we need to get behind, the film is never afraid to show the ignorance that can flow through people, including (and especially) those with youth behind them. Once that ignorance fades, then hope and change can begin.
Clint Eastwood has stated that this will be is last film and he will retire from acting. But two things make this difficult to believe 1: he said it after Million Dollar Baby, 2: His performance is a splendid one. Like I said at first the film almost comes across as a bit too much, sometimes it's a bit too comical, as if the film wants us to "laugh with the racist". But once the awkwardness subsides Eastwood's performance is captivating. It's an grand performance from an iconic actor. Whether he's threatening minorities or contemplating he own morality, Eastwood holds the attention in almost every scene.
Eastwood's performance carries the film and it has to as the other displays are largely forgettable. Maybe Eastwood the director wanted more of a "natural" performance from his unknown cast but it doesn't quite stick. In fact, the reason why I remember Ahner Her as Sue in the film is because she was quite pretty and being the geek I am, I'd rather see the acting first.
Another little niggle? The script feel a little forced. It helps that Eastwood can direct a story as well as he can as the screenplay would feel even worse if placed in lesser hands. The dialogue is amusing but is it because it's funny to laugh at such a man or because most of us is just not like that anymore? Are the plot points a little blatant? Maybe, but the story holds it's own, handles one of the western worlds most taboo subject with enough maturity to keep the viewer's attention and make it entertaining.
I'm still waiting for a film that deals with race relations as brutally as Do the right thing, however, Gran Torino is a solid little drama with a grand performance from one of cinemas hardest working directors and one of the our most memorable icons still living today.
After halfway through the first act....I was beginning to worry that this was some sort of piss take. Clint plays the role as an over the top embodiment of his earlier dirty harry roles and at first the display is amusing bordering on corny, but then something happens, everything clicks in and Eastwood's film becomes an entertaining metaphor for the grand changes happening in America. Walt becomes a representative of the U.S of old, almost reminiscent of John Wayne in The Searchers.
The environment is changing and Walt's not ready to fall in line with it just because a younger generation says so and although Walt is vile bigot, his willingness to stick to his principals is "admirable". But what made Gran Torino so appealing to me was the relationship Walt strikes up with his Eastern neighbours, it's one of compromise. A relationship that isn't perfect and never tries to be, but is pivotal to the enjoyment of the film. Eastwood directs the piece with a message that hits harder than the overt racist lines coming from it's lead. Eastwood's isn't about a shock change of views for anybody but a film about understanding. One that shows that looking at people from a different perspective, can bring about great things within each other.
Gran Torino is shadowed by one performance (we'll get to that) but don't let the messages within the film fly past you. One of the reasons I loved the film is that while the racist is the person we need to get behind, the film is never afraid to show the ignorance that can flow through people, including (and especially) those with youth behind them. Once that ignorance fades, then hope and change can begin.
Clint Eastwood has stated that this will be is last film and he will retire from acting. But two things make this difficult to believe 1: he said it after Million Dollar Baby, 2: His performance is a splendid one. Like I said at first the film almost comes across as a bit too much, sometimes it's a bit too comical, as if the film wants us to "laugh with the racist". But once the awkwardness subsides Eastwood's performance is captivating. It's an grand performance from an iconic actor. Whether he's threatening minorities or contemplating he own morality, Eastwood holds the attention in almost every scene.
Eastwood's performance carries the film and it has to as the other displays are largely forgettable. Maybe Eastwood the director wanted more of a "natural" performance from his unknown cast but it doesn't quite stick. In fact, the reason why I remember Ahner Her as Sue in the film is because she was quite pretty and being the geek I am, I'd rather see the acting first.
Another little niggle? The script feel a little forced. It helps that Eastwood can direct a story as well as he can as the screenplay would feel even worse if placed in lesser hands. The dialogue is amusing but is it because it's funny to laugh at such a man or because most of us is just not like that anymore? Are the plot points a little blatant? Maybe, but the story holds it's own, handles one of the western worlds most taboo subject with enough maturity to keep the viewer's attention and make it entertaining.
I'm still waiting for a film that deals with race relations as brutally as Do the right thing, however, Gran Torino is a solid little drama with a grand performance from one of cinemas hardest working directors and one of the our most memorable icons still living today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)