Year: 2009
Director: Richard Curtis
Screenplay: Richard Curtis
Starring: VERY NEARLY EVERY POPULAR COMEDIC BRIT ACTOR KNOWN TO MAN....and er Phillip Seymour Hoffman.
Synopsis is here
So I listened to an interview with Richard Curtis on Radio 4's The Film Program (look at me listening to grown up radio) and i must say i need to meet the guy. The interview was intelligent, droll and insightful (simply everything this blog isn't). To add to this he recommend to the listeners the beautiful (but depressing) Lilja-4-eva by Lukas Moodysson (BEWARE: film may cause viewer to kill themselves).
It was good that I heard this interview from the man before i watched The Boat that Rocked. Why?
I fucking hate his films.
Be it written or directed by him I usually find myself screaming at the sugary sweet, badly plotted, morally dubious tosh. Morally Dubious? you cry? Yes because if you look past the carefully chosen music and "delightfully British" mannerisms, Curtis is more saccharine and sickly than Spielberg and the only reason he gets away with it is due to the fact that he's not American. I swear that's the only reason he gets away with the horrid piece of shite that is Love, Actually.
That film is the worse offender because not only it's vomit inducing, it's badly plotted, filled with too many characters and over long....there I fucking said it.
Sorry.
Now The Boat That Rocked is badly plotted, filled with too many characters and is overlong. But it's a film which is also filled with some great comic acting, tender moments, features love affair I can get behind (a love of music). The film has a naughty sense of fun and the first act of the film was filled with an energy got me into the groove if you will. The comedy can be a little hit and miss but the film manages to breeze along and I found myself taken along on the ride. I myself was surprised, laughing at the jokes (it's the carry on in me).
But while the film manages to gain a good laugh out of my I left still slightly irritated and the reason why was because Curtis seems to believe that EVERYTHING he writes should be kept in a movie, resulting in a multitude of half developed sub-plots and characters that wait for their turn to say something giggly. Curtis shows his sitcom roots by giving us loads of mini stories that are not allowed to breathe. The film takes on too much, cheapening the overall experience of the film. The film introduces a gaggle of one-note (although amusing) characters and the hint of conflict, but avoids rocking the boat (pun not intended) too much. Everyone on the boat loves each other, the government are too far away to cause any real damage so we float along jumping from half-assed story to half-assed story.
The energy that kept me going through the first act soon drains away. Soon The Boat that Rocked becomes sporadically funny. The actors try their best to keep the joke going and I still found myself smiling at the antics. Smiles but not guffaws as Curtis gives us pirate radio without the rebellion. Wasn't that what the sixties all about? I maybe wrong. Also Curtis decides to "do a Spielberg" and ends the film 15-30 mins after the films seemingly logical climax, tying up loose ends and giving the film a displaced ending which is just not needed.
Acting wise we have an a huge amount of talent on display. Every man on board has at lease one throwaway gag that worth a titter. Curtis can still write well enough for the tank load of Brit film actors and cult sitcom stars and to their credit they show off their timing and charisma well. The women in the film however, either have nothing to say or appear quite mean spirited. In fact one woman preforms an act that would have chick flick audiences strangling their boyfriends if the perpetrator was a man.
The Boat That Rocked is enjoyable enough; the jokes are sitcom-lite but still funnier than My Family, the acting is the best of British and Phillip Seymour Hoffman doing Lester Bangs on a boat (he is only on board for the American crowd clearly). The best thing about the film is the music which of course rocks and it's these things alone that keep the film watchable. The film was almost forgotten about as soon as I left the cinema but it's a damn sight better Love, actually.
Monday, 20 April 2009
Sunday, 19 April 2009
POTTER RETURNS
So I've been extremely lazy with my blog and because of it I STILL have placed my dammed utd review up yet! So for now. Lets just say it's good and move on.
So the biggest thing to hit the net in the movie world lately is of course the final trailer of the new Harry Potter movie. Not my favorite franchise (work at a cinema and try interacting with those asshole parents and you'll see) but I understand it's value to it's fans.
So even though I gave up watching the movies at film 4 and gave up reading the books at novel 1, I feel that I'll take a look at this final trailer because hey it's "darker" (darker being the most overused word for this franchise).
To be honest (sorry fans) I really can't see what all the fuss is about. Maybe because the Potter films have been going on for what seems like forever, or maybe it's just that I felt some of the trailers for the earlier films were put together a little better than this one, but I can see myself avoiding this film due to lack of interest and the vast over hyped crowds that WB bros have craftily kept tightly wound for almost a year. It's bad enough that there's a 70% chance I may not like this due to my experiences with the other films but the idea of sitting in a full cinema full of ADD affected kids, miserable parents and blinkered fanboys (read: fangirls) may not be a good thing either. But to all those who will go out this summer to see it. Have a good one! (Note for once I'm not being a sarcy bastard as these films are good for the Brit film industry)
So the biggest thing to hit the net in the movie world lately is of course the final trailer of the new Harry Potter movie. Not my favorite franchise (work at a cinema and try interacting with those asshole parents and you'll see) but I understand it's value to it's fans.
So even though I gave up watching the movies at film 4 and gave up reading the books at novel 1, I feel that I'll take a look at this final trailer because hey it's "darker" (darker being the most overused word for this franchise).
To be honest (sorry fans) I really can't see what all the fuss is about. Maybe because the Potter films have been going on for what seems like forever, or maybe it's just that I felt some of the trailers for the earlier films were put together a little better than this one, but I can see myself avoiding this film due to lack of interest and the vast over hyped crowds that WB bros have craftily kept tightly wound for almost a year. It's bad enough that there's a 70% chance I may not like this due to my experiences with the other films but the idea of sitting in a full cinema full of ADD affected kids, miserable parents and blinkered fanboys (read: fangirls) may not be a good thing either. But to all those who will go out this summer to see it. Have a good one! (Note for once I'm not being a sarcy bastard as these films are good for the Brit film industry)
Monday, 13 April 2009
Review: Fast and Furious
Year: 2009
Director: Justin Lin
Screenplay: Chris Morgan
Starring: Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Joanna Brewster, Michelle Rodriguez
My girlfriend is better at voicing her opinion about film than myself. While I will write a long and pompous blog piece that goes into far too much detail about a film like this. My girlfriend clocked it with one sentence: "Shiny cars, shiny men. I liked it for the cars scenes". I don't know about you but she's right. That's why people go to these movies, the guys look good, the girls look good and everything blows up nice for them.
Unfortunately, I watched the film and I'm pedantic, so quite simply you have a choice: Stop reading now or grin and bare the review. Have you left? Good.
Fast and Furious is a bad 80's (or early 90's) film gussied up as a new one. It's mutton dressed as lamb, it's the girl you go with at the end of the night when you've had too much to drink. Yes the cars roar and yes Joanna Brewster is gorgeous but this film (like her role) is so shallow that they couldn't even up the ante with the main reason people would watch this film: The action.
Another issue with the films forth chapter that sticks in my shoes: Paul Walker. The "actor" has stuck out from the start. Why? Too whitebread for his own good. Everyone who loves the wire will remember the scene in the first series where bubbles points out all the errors with the young cop whose going undercover. Well I'm applying the same issue here. Would anyone believe Paul Walker's character is a street racer? I believe he's a cop in the Benjamin Bratt bad acting kinda way but undercover criminal? No. It's because the films have done a great job with it's surrounding environment. if I'm to believe Paul Walker is a undercover agent DO NOT MAKE EVERY STREET RACER A GRIMY* ETHNIC MINORITY. I say this because Paul Walker sticks out like a sore fucking thumb. The original movie had the character constantly under suspicion and that aspect of the plot carried the character over. Also there was the fact that other characters were also white, although they were white trash over varsity boy.
I'm looking into this far too much, but it makes the Mexican cartel look extremely stupid allowing Paul Walker's character in so easy. But then, Fast and Furious is full of stupid moments. Another example of stupidity is the fact that the FBI has been spotting Vin Diesel's character constantly through the film (and do nothing to capture him) but near the end of the film when we once again escapes they merely assume that he's gone across the boarder and not go back home for any reason at all. Paul Walker's character head to Vin Diesel's house and finds him working on his car. I'm not sure about you but if this guy is wanted so badly by the police, I find it shocking that they don't even bother to search his house, or even talk to his sister. Hell you could have even got another chase out of that somehow.
The film's story is pretty much D.O.A, liberally nabbing ques and lines from older movies and pretending that this is the first time they've ever been placed on celluloid. Add that to the last house on the left dopiness** of most of the characters and you have a recipe of frustration.
But like most films Fast and Furious has good points; despite having some slightly distracting CGI and looking like it's been editing by a hyper active teenage boy on sugar, the film's action set pieces and stunts are nice enough. Fast and Furious works best when the film shows you stunt drivers getting down and dirty in muscle cars. I also have to say if everything was done as well as the awesome opening sequence I would have let more of the movie slide.
The film is also extremely wise on building the story more towards Vin Diesel's character as his presence is so much more engaging than anyone else on screen. After watching the god awful Babylon A.D it's good to see Diesel show he actually has some ability. The less said about Paul Walker the better, while the two female leads (Rodriguez and Brewster) are given as little to do as humanly possible.
But since when has a film like this been about women at all? It's about boys and their toys (read penis extensions). Testosterone flying everywhere, despite actually being quite homoerotic. Like many of the films of the 80's (early 90's) Fast and Furious is out to make a quick buck as quick as possible and scarper because there's nothing to it expect the shiny machinery, which no doubt have thousands of boy racers go a little bit mental after watching the film.
Fast and Furious is nothing more than a shallow money making franchise extender and while I should know that before I get into the cinema, at least it could do itself a favor and at least be fun to sit through.
*Grimy Ethnic Minority I use the term much like I'd use the phase the difference between n****rs and black people. Don't get what I'm talking about? Feel offended? Catch up on your Chris Rock
**Last house on the left featured two of the dumbest characters I've seen in a film
Director: Justin Lin
Screenplay: Chris Morgan
Starring: Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Joanna Brewster, Michelle Rodriguez
My girlfriend is better at voicing her opinion about film than myself. While I will write a long and pompous blog piece that goes into far too much detail about a film like this. My girlfriend clocked it with one sentence: "Shiny cars, shiny men. I liked it for the cars scenes". I don't know about you but she's right. That's why people go to these movies, the guys look good, the girls look good and everything blows up nice for them.
Unfortunately, I watched the film and I'm pedantic, so quite simply you have a choice: Stop reading now or grin and bare the review. Have you left? Good.
Fast and Furious is a bad 80's (or early 90's) film gussied up as a new one. It's mutton dressed as lamb, it's the girl you go with at the end of the night when you've had too much to drink. Yes the cars roar and yes Joanna Brewster is gorgeous but this film (like her role) is so shallow that they couldn't even up the ante with the main reason people would watch this film: The action.
Another issue with the films forth chapter that sticks in my shoes: Paul Walker. The "actor" has stuck out from the start. Why? Too whitebread for his own good. Everyone who loves the wire will remember the scene in the first series where bubbles points out all the errors with the young cop whose going undercover. Well I'm applying the same issue here. Would anyone believe Paul Walker's character is a street racer? I believe he's a cop in the Benjamin Bratt bad acting kinda way but undercover criminal? No. It's because the films have done a great job with it's surrounding environment. if I'm to believe Paul Walker is a undercover agent DO NOT MAKE EVERY STREET RACER A GRIMY* ETHNIC MINORITY. I say this because Paul Walker sticks out like a sore fucking thumb. The original movie had the character constantly under suspicion and that aspect of the plot carried the character over. Also there was the fact that other characters were also white, although they were white trash over varsity boy.
I'm looking into this far too much, but it makes the Mexican cartel look extremely stupid allowing Paul Walker's character in so easy. But then, Fast and Furious is full of stupid moments. Another example of stupidity is the fact that the FBI has been spotting Vin Diesel's character constantly through the film (and do nothing to capture him) but near the end of the film when we once again escapes they merely assume that he's gone across the boarder and not go back home for any reason at all. Paul Walker's character head to Vin Diesel's house and finds him working on his car. I'm not sure about you but if this guy is wanted so badly by the police, I find it shocking that they don't even bother to search his house, or even talk to his sister. Hell you could have even got another chase out of that somehow.
The film's story is pretty much D.O.A, liberally nabbing ques and lines from older movies and pretending that this is the first time they've ever been placed on celluloid. Add that to the last house on the left dopiness** of most of the characters and you have a recipe of frustration.
But like most films Fast and Furious has good points; despite having some slightly distracting CGI and looking like it's been editing by a hyper active teenage boy on sugar, the film's action set pieces and stunts are nice enough. Fast and Furious works best when the film shows you stunt drivers getting down and dirty in muscle cars. I also have to say if everything was done as well as the awesome opening sequence I would have let more of the movie slide.
The film is also extremely wise on building the story more towards Vin Diesel's character as his presence is so much more engaging than anyone else on screen. After watching the god awful Babylon A.D it's good to see Diesel show he actually has some ability. The less said about Paul Walker the better, while the two female leads (Rodriguez and Brewster) are given as little to do as humanly possible.
But since when has a film like this been about women at all? It's about boys and their toys (read penis extensions). Testosterone flying everywhere, despite actually being quite homoerotic. Like many of the films of the 80's (early 90's) Fast and Furious is out to make a quick buck as quick as possible and scarper because there's nothing to it expect the shiny machinery, which no doubt have thousands of boy racers go a little bit mental after watching the film.
Fast and Furious is nothing more than a shallow money making franchise extender and while I should know that before I get into the cinema, at least it could do itself a favor and at least be fun to sit through.
*Grimy Ethnic Minority I use the term much like I'd use the phase the difference between n****rs and black people. Don't get what I'm talking about? Feel offended? Catch up on your Chris Rock
**Last house on the left featured two of the dumbest characters I've seen in a film
Tuesday, 7 April 2009
Review: Knowing
Year:2009
Director: Alex Proyas
Screenplay:Ryne Douglas Pearson, Juliet Snowden, Stiles White
Starring: Nic Cage, Rose Byrne
SPOILERS MAY BE BOUND DUE TO THE FILMS THAT THIS REVIEW REFERENCES!
Synopsis is here
Enjoyment in Knowing relies on a reveal in the third act that requires a hell of a lot of suspension of belief. After walking out of the film I was angry at the end because I found the reveal so heavy handed I burst out laughing. After going to ASDA and picking up a curry I found myself still considering the ending. Now this is usually a good thing because the endings that stays with you are the ones you love. Then I released why. The film sticks to its sci-fi concept and the themes that come with the message are surprisingly grand for such a film.
However the execution of the climax becomes difficult to digest for me because it's ham-fisted and the allegory becomes obvious, even more obvious than Signs (2002) a film that Knowing appears to alludes to. The reveal also reminds me of another film I was extremely disappointed with...I won't say too much more but it involves crystal skulls, with that said however, Knowing has more respect for it's audience (for the most part).
Director Alex Proyas is a solid filmmaker and his back catalog shows that he has a knack for material like this. In Knowing he reminds us why he was picked as director after Richard Kelly (Donnie Darko) left the project. Proyas keeps the film interesting from a visual sense, pilfering elements from his very own film (Dark City) to bring about some tense moments throughout the film. Some have complained about the over reliance on CGI and while it's not the best computer visual work I've seen, Proyas' keen eye kept me within the film. His direction kept me involved in the movie, much more than Cage's dubious performance in the lead (we'll get to that).
The screenplay has been considered generic by some and I can understand why. Cage's lead John suffers from estranged parents, alcoholism and a death in his family AS WELL AS having to deal with his bizarre son. Generic it may be but the stereotypes (as blatant as they are) help bring about a character who is much more fully formed than many I've seen in a film like this in a while (note last film I watched before this was The Fast and The Furious). In fact the screenplay is appears more interested in telling it's story and bring about it's themes which is becoming more and more of a surprise for me these days.
It's a shame that despite it's good points, Knowing hurts itself with it's lead actor and ending. The screenplay which looked like it could set up a worthy climax, trips over its logic (John and the door...how?). Proyas tries to run with it but the climax is displayed in such a way it becomes comical. While I was shocked at the direction the film took i realised it should take that route as it's a SCI-FI MOVIE and it makes sense in the long run. What I hated about ending is the hodgepodge religious symbolism the film shoves in. If the film wanted to be The Omen or otherwise it should have been a horror movie. There's more than enough aspects of the film to make it one. But the film wants to have it's cake and eat it, throwing away any type of subtlety (or dignity) in order to try and please everyone it seems. It doesn't help that Nicolas Cage is at his most inexpressive here. This has been his strongest screenplay since Lord of War (2005) and Cage refuses to inject any energy into his scenes. A stronger performance may have made the ending bearable.
Rose Byrne is shoehorned into a supporting role and doesn't have too much to do but is solid enough while the child actors are pretty forgettable. There's some interesting turns from Nadia Townsend and Ben Mendelsohn as John's sister and Best friend respectively but the film hasn't the time to fill them out as much.
Knowing deals with some grand themes and for the most part makes the journey towards the message an intriguing one, however the scripts wish to balance religion with sci-fi knocks it off course. It's hard to do both but I've seen films do it in the past. The main film I'm thinking of is Darren Aronofsky's Pi, a film that manages to balance that delicate line that knowing so desperately wants to stay on the right side. But Pi has a advantage of being a smaller film with less focus on spectacle and more on it's script. If Knowing went down the same route I would probably rate it higher.
Director: Alex Proyas
Screenplay:Ryne Douglas Pearson, Juliet Snowden, Stiles White
Starring: Nic Cage, Rose Byrne
SPOILERS MAY BE BOUND DUE TO THE FILMS THAT THIS REVIEW REFERENCES!
Synopsis is here
Enjoyment in Knowing relies on a reveal in the third act that requires a hell of a lot of suspension of belief. After walking out of the film I was angry at the end because I found the reveal so heavy handed I burst out laughing. After going to ASDA and picking up a curry I found myself still considering the ending. Now this is usually a good thing because the endings that stays with you are the ones you love. Then I released why. The film sticks to its sci-fi concept and the themes that come with the message are surprisingly grand for such a film.
However the execution of the climax becomes difficult to digest for me because it's ham-fisted and the allegory becomes obvious, even more obvious than Signs (2002) a film that Knowing appears to alludes to. The reveal also reminds me of another film I was extremely disappointed with...I won't say too much more but it involves crystal skulls, with that said however, Knowing has more respect for it's audience (for the most part).
Director Alex Proyas is a solid filmmaker and his back catalog shows that he has a knack for material like this. In Knowing he reminds us why he was picked as director after Richard Kelly (Donnie Darko) left the project. Proyas keeps the film interesting from a visual sense, pilfering elements from his very own film (Dark City) to bring about some tense moments throughout the film. Some have complained about the over reliance on CGI and while it's not the best computer visual work I've seen, Proyas' keen eye kept me within the film. His direction kept me involved in the movie, much more than Cage's dubious performance in the lead (we'll get to that).
The screenplay has been considered generic by some and I can understand why. Cage's lead John suffers from estranged parents, alcoholism and a death in his family AS WELL AS having to deal with his bizarre son. Generic it may be but the stereotypes (as blatant as they are) help bring about a character who is much more fully formed than many I've seen in a film like this in a while (note last film I watched before this was The Fast and The Furious). In fact the screenplay is appears more interested in telling it's story and bring about it's themes which is becoming more and more of a surprise for me these days.
It's a shame that despite it's good points, Knowing hurts itself with it's lead actor and ending. The screenplay which looked like it could set up a worthy climax, trips over its logic (John and the door...how?). Proyas tries to run with it but the climax is displayed in such a way it becomes comical. While I was shocked at the direction the film took i realised it should take that route as it's a SCI-FI MOVIE and it makes sense in the long run. What I hated about ending is the hodgepodge religious symbolism the film shoves in. If the film wanted to be The Omen or otherwise it should have been a horror movie. There's more than enough aspects of the film to make it one. But the film wants to have it's cake and eat it, throwing away any type of subtlety (or dignity) in order to try and please everyone it seems. It doesn't help that Nicolas Cage is at his most inexpressive here. This has been his strongest screenplay since Lord of War (2005) and Cage refuses to inject any energy into his scenes. A stronger performance may have made the ending bearable.
Rose Byrne is shoehorned into a supporting role and doesn't have too much to do but is solid enough while the child actors are pretty forgettable. There's some interesting turns from Nadia Townsend and Ben Mendelsohn as John's sister and Best friend respectively but the film hasn't the time to fill them out as much.
Knowing deals with some grand themes and for the most part makes the journey towards the message an intriguing one, however the scripts wish to balance religion with sci-fi knocks it off course. It's hard to do both but I've seen films do it in the past. The main film I'm thinking of is Darren Aronofsky's Pi, a film that manages to balance that delicate line that knowing so desperately wants to stay on the right side. But Pi has a advantage of being a smaller film with less focus on spectacle and more on it's script. If Knowing went down the same route I would probably rate it higher.
Friday, 3 April 2009
Review: The Haunting in Connecticut
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)