Grave Encounters is the story of a ghost hunter (big "before all the rest of the guys") who is only on his 6th ghost-hunting expedition. His team has the same equipment as the SyFy ghost hunters, all the EMF meters and stuff like that. Eventually, as you'd expect, they find themselves in over their heads. Hallways lead to more hallways. Clocks say it's 1 PM, but there's no light coming through the windows. One of the crew goes missing, so they begin a search-- Did you hear that?
Just as Chronicle was an excellent example of how to use the "found footage" drama, Grave Encounters is not. It seems to have the same budget as the SyFy shows it's mocking. The special effects are pretty corny. I could possibly overlook this if the story was good enough (The Walking Dead's blood is all noticeably fake, but it doesn't detract from the story at all), but the story tries to do a bit too much with too little. We have some kind of entity that's extremely strong, lifting and throwing things, we have weird pupil-less patients (very much like the evil monkey things in Descent), and we have something making thumping noises, we have endless halls, etc. etc. There's just so much to fit in a movie, and none of it is explained at all. They make a huge deal out of losing Matt (seriously, about five minutes of walking around in the dark yelling "Matt? Matt?") then when their overly-tanned psychic disappears (who's also an actual on-screen character on the show, unlike behind-the-scenes Matt), no big deal Let's just get out of here. A lot of glaring plot holes like this mar the movie.
The biggest thing is, there's really no reason for the haunting. Are these the tortured souls of patients? Are the evil doctors' souls haunting them? Are they dead now and that's why it's a darkened maze? Why is it dark out? The movie never provides even a basic answer for this, other than talking about a doctor who did lobotomies in the introduction. Lobotomies were done pretty much everywhere for a very long time. It's a fairly awful procedure, but it's not evil to perform one. It was just the "it" thing at the time.
The effects are pretty awful. Lots of what appears to be eye shadow and stretchy jaws, stupid fake digital hands sticking out of the ceiling. I allow myself to be scared pretty easily, but when my sister popped in the door towards the ending, I barely jumped. I really wanted to like this film. It just kept getting in the way of itself. It shows us too much and tells us too little. And oh my God, are the main characters annoying. They are basically the cast of any of those paranormal shows, and act about as annoying as they would if they ever actually encountered ghosts.
I guess the takeaway is, this is not the worst horror movie I've seen, nor the most inept. It just wasn't good.
Rating: 2/5
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Sunday, May 20, 2012
3. The Avengers
I went out and saw The Avengers the other day. I read an interview with the director, Joss Whedon, where he said he was attracted to the movie because The Avengers was the first comic he could remember reading and it was very strange. It's a bunch of superheroes who get together and take care of things they can't handle by themselves. But they all had their own comics so it was little odd. The film, for some reason, adds Black Widow to the team (she only helps assemble/disassemble the team in the comics, if memory serves correctly). In the comics, the original lineup included Giant Man and the Wasp too, so who knows what Whedon was thinking. I guess the film canon is a bit different, but still...
Anyway, the movie is pretty much what you'd expect from a comic book movie circa Spiderman 1. It's very funny, possibly the funniest comic book movie yet. There are laughs every few minutes. It's good to see a comic movie not take itself so seriously. Whedon was the perfect director to pull this off. Buffy was hilarious, so I expected at least that much.
I haven't seen Whedon's OTHER major feature film release yet (Cabin in the Woods) but I've heard similar things: "he makes it genuinely scary while still making it laugh-out-loud funny." That's kind of exactly how Avengers is. It's a genuine super-hero movie with lots of laughs. Very entertaining.
However, the movie is pretty much what-you-see-is-what-you-get. I found no real subtext or anything deeper than "SAVE THE WORLD!" I was a little annoyed by this. I don't see why you can't have this type of thing, even in "popcorn" movies like Avengers. I mean, Whedon's work usually always has some kind of deeper aspect, be it the unusual strong female lead leading around a group of boys or a genre-bending western set in space. This is... a movie about a team of super heroes. No more, no less. They all have different reasons for joining the team, but they're kind of glanced over, even in a 2+ hour movie. I liked the movie, I just found it shallow. That doesn't make it un-enjoyable, it just makes it not-immortal.
Rating: 4/5
Quotes:
Captain America: (planning the plan of attack, giving out directions to each member) And Hulk- (Hulk looks, suspicious) smash.
Anyway, the movie is pretty much what you'd expect from a comic book movie circa Spiderman 1. It's very funny, possibly the funniest comic book movie yet. There are laughs every few minutes. It's good to see a comic movie not take itself so seriously. Whedon was the perfect director to pull this off. Buffy was hilarious, so I expected at least that much.
I haven't seen Whedon's OTHER major feature film release yet (Cabin in the Woods) but I've heard similar things: "he makes it genuinely scary while still making it laugh-out-loud funny." That's kind of exactly how Avengers is. It's a genuine super-hero movie with lots of laughs. Very entertaining.
However, the movie is pretty much what-you-see-is-what-you-get. I found no real subtext or anything deeper than "SAVE THE WORLD!" I was a little annoyed by this. I don't see why you can't have this type of thing, even in "popcorn" movies like Avengers. I mean, Whedon's work usually always has some kind of deeper aspect, be it the unusual strong female lead leading around a group of boys or a genre-bending western set in space. This is... a movie about a team of super heroes. No more, no less. They all have different reasons for joining the team, but they're kind of glanced over, even in a 2+ hour movie. I liked the movie, I just found it shallow. That doesn't make it un-enjoyable, it just makes it not-immortal.
Rating: 4/5
Quotes:
Captain America: (planning the plan of attack, giving out directions to each member) And Hulk- (Hulk looks, suspicious) smash.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
2. Midnight In Paris
An interesting premise for a movie: Woody Allen, as portrayed by Owen Wilson, is a screenwriter in Paris to get married and hopefully find some inspiration for his first novel. He goes out drunk one night to sit on some steps in Paris. A car picks him up and all of a sudden Woody finds himself in 1920's Paris with the likes of Picasso, Hemingway, and Gertrude Stein. He falls in love with a mistress of Picasso's in the 1920's, leading to conflict with his soon-to-be wife in 2010. He learns some valuable lessons about the past and gets some help with his novel and decides to stay in the present, albeit a bit differently than he started.
Woody Allen won an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay for this movie, and I can see the reason why. He name drops some of my personal favorite writers all over the place without coming across as pretentious. Owen ("Gus" - how's that for meta?) meets them pretty randomly at Gertrude Stein's apartment, as I'm sure was the custom around that point. All kinds of future famous artists met there. When I went to Paris recently, my friend and I went on a half-assed Hemingway walk around town. We went to Gertrude Stein's apartment and all it is now is just a regular-looking apartment building with a small plaque confirming that yes, this is the building where it went down. The door, in contrast to Gertrude's, is barred with steel and there's a camera above the door. Somehow, though, Allen put down on film (actually, on digital memory, a first for Allen) exactly what I was imagining, standing on that street that Hemingway and everyone else must have walked down. All the moods they must have been in on that street, ready to walk in, excited about their new art... I understand Allen's impulse here.
The movie begins with a series of establishing shots detailing some of the less famous parts of Paris. When we went, we stayed a kilometer or two down the street from Moulin Rouge, featured prominently in this montage, as well as about a ten minute walk from Sacre Couer, also pictured (it's the white domed building that looks like it's up on a hill - because it is. A very steep one). I liked this because this was the Paris that you see when you go there. The monuments aren't hard to get to, but I more remember the less famous things that Allen includes: the flashing lights on the Eiffel Tower, the view down the road from the Arc de Triomphe, people sitting outside cafes smoking and sipping coffee. That's where the real feel of Paris comes from, yes, the famous things, but the moments in between more so. Allen captures it wonderfully.
Another thing he does well are the little moments between strangers that can change the course of your life. I love those little parts of life, when you strike up a random conversation with some person over some small mutual bond and then you remember that from then on. There's a scene where Owen talks to a tour guide he'd met once before just to get her opinion on his problem, and she tells him something that directs where the movie heads next. The tour guide is only in two scenes, yet that's enough to establish the relationship and earn a small bond of trust between the two. The scenes are totally necessary, just like those little scenes in life are.
A shout-out to Kathy Bates as Gertrude Stein and Corey Stoll as Ernest Hemingway. Both brilliant performances.
Score: 5/5
Quotes:
"We all fear death and question our place in the universe. The artist's job is not to succumb to despair but to find an antidote for the emptiness of existance. You have a clear and lively voice, don't be such a defeatist." Gertrude Stein (Kathy Bates) to Gus (Owen Wilson)
"If you stay here (the past), this becomes your present, then pretty soon you'll start imagining another time was really your "golden" time. That's what the present is, it's a little unsatisfying because life's a little unsatisfying... If I ever wanna write something worthwhile, I have to get rid of all my illusions and that I'd be happier in the past is probably one of them." Gus (Owen Wilson) to Adriana (Marion Cotillard)
Woody Allen won an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay for this movie, and I can see the reason why. He name drops some of my personal favorite writers all over the place without coming across as pretentious. Owen ("Gus" - how's that for meta?) meets them pretty randomly at Gertrude Stein's apartment, as I'm sure was the custom around that point. All kinds of future famous artists met there. When I went to Paris recently, my friend and I went on a half-assed Hemingway walk around town. We went to Gertrude Stein's apartment and all it is now is just a regular-looking apartment building with a small plaque confirming that yes, this is the building where it went down. The door, in contrast to Gertrude's, is barred with steel and there's a camera above the door. Somehow, though, Allen put down on film (actually, on digital memory, a first for Allen) exactly what I was imagining, standing on that street that Hemingway and everyone else must have walked down. All the moods they must have been in on that street, ready to walk in, excited about their new art... I understand Allen's impulse here.
The movie begins with a series of establishing shots detailing some of the less famous parts of Paris. When we went, we stayed a kilometer or two down the street from Moulin Rouge, featured prominently in this montage, as well as about a ten minute walk from Sacre Couer, also pictured (it's the white domed building that looks like it's up on a hill - because it is. A very steep one). I liked this because this was the Paris that you see when you go there. The monuments aren't hard to get to, but I more remember the less famous things that Allen includes: the flashing lights on the Eiffel Tower, the view down the road from the Arc de Triomphe, people sitting outside cafes smoking and sipping coffee. That's where the real feel of Paris comes from, yes, the famous things, but the moments in between more so. Allen captures it wonderfully.
Another thing he does well are the little moments between strangers that can change the course of your life. I love those little parts of life, when you strike up a random conversation with some person over some small mutual bond and then you remember that from then on. There's a scene where Owen talks to a tour guide he'd met once before just to get her opinion on his problem, and she tells him something that directs where the movie heads next. The tour guide is only in two scenes, yet that's enough to establish the relationship and earn a small bond of trust between the two. The scenes are totally necessary, just like those little scenes in life are.
A shout-out to Kathy Bates as Gertrude Stein and Corey Stoll as Ernest Hemingway. Both brilliant performances.
Score: 5/5
Quotes:
"We all fear death and question our place in the universe. The artist's job is not to succumb to despair but to find an antidote for the emptiness of existance. You have a clear and lively voice, don't be such a defeatist." Gertrude Stein (Kathy Bates) to Gus (Owen Wilson)
"If you stay here (the past), this becomes your present, then pretty soon you'll start imagining another time was really your "golden" time. That's what the present is, it's a little unsatisfying because life's a little unsatisfying... If I ever wanna write something worthwhile, I have to get rid of all my illusions and that I'd be happier in the past is probably one of them." Gus (Owen Wilson) to Adriana (Marion Cotillard)
Saturday, May 12, 2012
1. Chronicle
Chronicle tells the story of three guys who find a hole in the ground that allows them to use telekinesis. Soon after, they find themselves getting stronger, with Andrew being the strongest (and the one who's most interested in filming everything). Eventually the power begins to corrupt them, and ultimately the demons Andrew has in his personal life eventually lead to his downfall.
This movie is, quite simply, one of the best examples of the found-footage genre out there. I really enjoyed Cloverfield. I've heard some criticism that there's not enough of the monster, it's too slow, etc., but I think these complaints are mainly borne out of the type of horror we've become accustomed to over the past ten or so years when gore has become the measure of choice for many. I personally don't like the goriness. I really like older horror movies like Don't Look Now and Suspiria, the kind of slower, suspenseful horror (Don't Look Now) and artistic gore (Suspiria). The found-footage genre necessarily has to be slightly slower - you have to not only make the main character likable and believable, you have to give him or her a reason to have the camera in the first place. It works quite well for horror movies, which I believe is why Chronicle stands out from the rest of the pack. It's basically a superhero movie, with the origin story, the discovery of the powers, the strengthening and the eventual downfall of the main character with the most power. The only horror in the movie comes from the horror of realizing that what's happening in front of us could happen to any of us. It makes the viewer uncomfortable to think of what, with near-unlimited power, we would do to that asshole riding our tail.
On the technical side, the movie creates an interesting dialogue with the viewer. We watch as Andrew learns to manipulate his formerly handheld camera into doing sweeps and zooms like a professional movie-maker. As such, the movie seems to grow with the characters and takes the viewer along for the ride, flying around up in the skies, through security cameras in a hospital after Andrew is arrested, following Andrew through a crowd as he takes revenge on a bully.
The only problem I really have with the movie is that the end, Andrew's downward spiral, moves a little too quickly. The viewer may pick up on how volatile Andrew really is, with an abusive father, a terminally sick mother, and bullies at and on the way home from school, but his bottoming out in the last act felt like it resolved too quickly after all the buildup. The characters themselves (other than Andrew, the popular candidate for student government and Andrew's cousin, Matt, a pothead with girl troubles of his own) are a little static. But I think that serves the movie's ultimate purpose, which is to answer the question "What if a person with a hard life was granted power over everyone else?" Andrew calls himself the "apex predator," meaning none of the other "smaller animals" can hurt him. How could anyone not overreact if they found themselves in that position after being downtrodden for most of his life?
The film pretty accurately answers the question. Ultimate power usually does corrupt, even to those who need a little more power in their lives. Still, an excellent example of handheld low-budget storytelling.
Score: 4/5
This movie is, quite simply, one of the best examples of the found-footage genre out there. I really enjoyed Cloverfield. I've heard some criticism that there's not enough of the monster, it's too slow, etc., but I think these complaints are mainly borne out of the type of horror we've become accustomed to over the past ten or so years when gore has become the measure of choice for many. I personally don't like the goriness. I really like older horror movies like Don't Look Now and Suspiria, the kind of slower, suspenseful horror (Don't Look Now) and artistic gore (Suspiria). The found-footage genre necessarily has to be slightly slower - you have to not only make the main character likable and believable, you have to give him or her a reason to have the camera in the first place. It works quite well for horror movies, which I believe is why Chronicle stands out from the rest of the pack. It's basically a superhero movie, with the origin story, the discovery of the powers, the strengthening and the eventual downfall of the main character with the most power. The only horror in the movie comes from the horror of realizing that what's happening in front of us could happen to any of us. It makes the viewer uncomfortable to think of what, with near-unlimited power, we would do to that asshole riding our tail.
On the technical side, the movie creates an interesting dialogue with the viewer. We watch as Andrew learns to manipulate his formerly handheld camera into doing sweeps and zooms like a professional movie-maker. As such, the movie seems to grow with the characters and takes the viewer along for the ride, flying around up in the skies, through security cameras in a hospital after Andrew is arrested, following Andrew through a crowd as he takes revenge on a bully.
The only problem I really have with the movie is that the end, Andrew's downward spiral, moves a little too quickly. The viewer may pick up on how volatile Andrew really is, with an abusive father, a terminally sick mother, and bullies at and on the way home from school, but his bottoming out in the last act felt like it resolved too quickly after all the buildup. The characters themselves (other than Andrew, the popular candidate for student government and Andrew's cousin, Matt, a pothead with girl troubles of his own) are a little static. But I think that serves the movie's ultimate purpose, which is to answer the question "What if a person with a hard life was granted power over everyone else?" Andrew calls himself the "apex predator," meaning none of the other "smaller animals" can hurt him. How could anyone not overreact if they found themselves in that position after being downtrodden for most of his life?
The film pretty accurately answers the question. Ultimate power usually does corrupt, even to those who need a little more power in their lives. Still, an excellent example of handheld low-budget storytelling.
Score: 4/5
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)