Change Your Image
godjunior71
Reviews
V/H/S/2 (2013)
A major improvement on part one
I remember attending a midnight screening of V/H/S last spring, shortly after it premiered at Sundance. I appreciated the concept and enjoyed some of the first film's segments, but as a whole, I found it less than satisfying. When word came that a sequel, V/H/S/2 would be screening at the Boston Independent Film Festival, I originally had no intention of seeing it. That is, until I heard the word of mouth from previous screenings that this new installment is an entirely different animal from its predecessor.
It is.
V/H/S/2 is tighter, smarter, gorier, funnier, and above all, scarier: not "jump + loud noise" scary, but the kind of scary that halts your breathing for periods of time. This alone makes V/H/S/2 a success. I'll try to break it apart by each short, as spoiler-free as possible.
TAPE 49 (Directed by Simon Barrett): The wraparound story here involves two private investigators searching for a missing college student. Their search leads them to an abandoned house that happens to be littered with video cassettes and a few inviting television sets. This section is the weakest part of the movie: context, and not particularly frightening or involving context.
CLINICAL TRIALS (Directed by Adam Wingard): In a smart move, the film starts off with the most inconsequential short. A young guy receives a test-phase robotic eye implant only to discover that the implant can pick up on things invisible to the human eye - like ghosts. It's a bit gimmicky, and the acting leaves a lot to be desired, but the short is fun and doesn't outstay its welcome.
A RIDE IN THE PARK (Directed by Eduardo Sanchez and Gregg Hale): Easily the most inventive segment, this one involves a mountain biker who happens to be out in the woods when a zombie epidemic begins. Attacked and zombie-fied early on, we witness the rest of the film from the POV of the guy's GoPro camera as he devours hapless people. Wisely forgoing good taste, the zombies eventually converge on a kid's birthday party. Gruesome and very funny, this one gets points for making a tired genre fresh by showing it from a zombie's perspective.
SAFE HAVEN (Directed by Gareth Huw Evans and Timo Tjahjanto): If there's one short that necessitates seeing V/H/S/2, it's this one. The longest - and by far the most terrifying - features an Indonesian TV crew being granted access to the jungle compound of a cult leader they're profiling. I don't want to reveal anything else, other than before long, all hell breaks loose. (Literally.) The pacing here is brilliant with enough buildup and unnerving atmosphere to make the final stomach-churning moments quite horrifying. Special kudos should also go to the production design. Between the eerily realistic compound sets and some outstanding special effects, I found it difficult to shake this segment from my brain.
ALIEN ABDUCTION SLUMBER PARTY (Directed by Joe Eisener): A bit of a comedown after "Safe Haven" but still quite capable, the final short depicts exactly what the title suggests. Again, the pacing here works well, with the major action occurring in the final third of the segment. The young teens are believable in their mischief and terror. Plus, we witness most of the events from the perspective of a small dog. (The kids strap their camera to the dog before things turn scary.) In many ways, this short went in a direction that I wish "Signs" or "Super 8" had the guts to take.
You know your threshold for horror. If you enjoy being legitimately rattled, and especially if you're tired of Hollywood's modern interpretation of horror, then you owe it to yourself to see V/H/S/2. I'll be looking forward to part three, if it comes.
West Bank Story (2005)
Vastly Overrated...
As a fellow young filmmaker whose credits up to this point have been mostly short films, it's hard for me to say this, but I was very disappointed by the much-hyped "West Bank Story". After hearing so many good things about the short and watching it win the Best Live Action Short Oscar, I was intrigued, and managed to get a copy of it from an associate. It must be said that "West Bank Story" has a great premise. Unfortunately, the premise is really the only thing about it that's great. The execution leaves much to be desired. The jokes, which could have been so much cleverer and sharper, are instead predictable, flat, and redundant, to the point where the movie just becomes tedious to watch. The acting is fine, and it's easy to see that the filmmakers used their budget to a nice extent, but it just seems like so much for so little. I have seen some of the other shorts that were up for the Oscar, and the fact that "West Bank Story" was the one that snagged the statue doesn't exactly flatter the Academy.
Primeval (2007)
Nothing great, but above average horror flick
I admit it, I have a soft spot for monster movies. Maybe it's the kid in me who watched all the old "creature features" at a young age, or maybe it's the fact that no one has really made a serious monster movie since...well, you tell me. That being said, "Primeval" is no work of genius, and like most mainstream films, is loaded with clichéd moments that we've seen in better movies. However, when compared to the films that pass for horror today, this one has surprising bite (no pun intended) at certain moments. The main complaint here seems to be the misleading advertising campaign of the film, hyping it up as a tale of serial killer in rural Africa. Of course, the actual story details an American news team (the brooding male leader, the hot female sidekick, and of course, the token black guy who serves mostly as comic relief) traveling to the war-torn Burundi to film and hopefully capture Gustave, an enormous crocodile who has eaten hundreds of people. Naturally, things go wrong, and the river soon runs red. An interesting aspect of the movie is the inclusion of a warlord in the plot, adding a second threat to the protagonists (Gustave is, of course, their first threat). This risky move sometimes works and sometimes doesn't, but I applaud the filmmakers for trying something new at least. What really redeems the film however are a few key scenes that are surprisingly atmospheric (something most modern horror films have forgotten), well edited, and increasingly suspenseful. Without giving too much away, the croc itself is better than one may expect from this kind of a movie. The cast does what they can with a strictly average script, yet for the most part, manage to elicit some interest and sympathy. The final act is a bit of a disappointment, but by that point, it's already been a fun, exciting ride, and one doesn't really care. In short, "Primeval" is strictly what many of us go to the movies for: popcorn entertainment. I myself had originally gone to see "Pan's Labyrinth" but as the shows were sold out, my friends and I eventually decided to give "Primeval" a go. I wasn't dazzled, but then again, I wasn't expecting to be. It's simply fun, escapist entertainment, and despite what any film snob will tell you, there's nothing wrong with that. Just shut your brain off and you should have a good time.
Saw II (2005)
Barely holds a candle to the first film
I was quite impressed by the first "Saw", and thrilled to hear that a sequel was in the works. The more I thought about it though, I began to worry that the second film would turn out to be an uninspired, inferior, money-driven counterpart. While one could definitely do worse, I'm sad to say that Saw II falls drastically short of it's predecessor.
The movies starts off very well, with a disturbing "victim" scene that evokes the same feelings of nauesa and suspense as the first film. However, after the credits roll, the sense of dread and terror disappears, and Saw II turns into a second-rate, though technically impressive, thriller. This time, instead of two men chained in a bathroom, the Jigsaw killer (Tobin Bell) has locked a large group of strangers together in a decripit old house. There's a poisonous gas wafting around the house and the prisoners have two hours to find antidotes before the toxins kill them. And of course, the house is rigged with Jigsaw-worthy booby traps. While all of this goes on, Detective Eric Matthews (Donnie Wahlberg) has corned Jigsaw himself, and thinks that he has the killer's scheme all figured out. But what would a "Saw" film be without twists? Unfortunately, in the case of Saw II, I thought that the plot twists actually hurt the film in the end, as well as a lot of other things. First and foremost is the cast. What drove the first film was the development of the two main characters. I cared about them and wanted to see them escape from the bathroom. Not only are the characters in Saw II underdeveloped, but most of them are either so bland, obnoxious, or despicable that I couldn't wait to see most of them meet a grisly end in one of Jigsaw's traps. This, is not a good thing. Jigsaw himself is well played by Tobin Bell, but the fact that he is presented in person throughout the film actually makes him less frightening. The Jigsaw from the first film was more than a slasher villain, but at the same time, he was no Hannibal Lecter. He was a brilliant, sadistic philosopher/killer who was only seen at the very end of the film. The Jigsaw in Saw II just doesn't seem quite perverse enough.
As for the other characters.....Donnie Wahlberg gives a decent performance in a role that doesn't command much sympathy from the audience. Shawnee Smith returns as Amanda, and does a good job in the part. I don't know the word to describe Franky G's acting, but let me just say that I have not encountered a more beligerent and annoying horror victim (I couldn't wait for him to bite the dust, again, not a good sign). Overall, the acting isn't atrocious. It's just that none of the characters are remotely interesting.
The direction from Darren Lynn-Bousman makes me cry for James Wan to return to the series, for Saw II sorely lacks the edge and I daresay the mean spirit of the first film. Fortunately, there are some nice nods to Saw in the second film. The first kill, the cackling doll on the tricycle, and another scene which I will not give away. The film is well shot and lit, and the production design is nice, but the fast-paced, MTV-esquire editing that occasionally popped up in the first film is everywhere in Saw II, and often detracts from what little horror there is.
And finally, there is a big twist in the end of the movie, but it's not a very good one, and feels more like plot revlation recycled from those of other movies. The whole film seems to be building towards the inevitable twist in the end, and the pay-off is far from satisfying. Indeed, the plot of Saw II has more holes than a wheel of Swiss cheese, and much of it is very hard to believe. At first I found it hard to believe that Leigh Whannel (and although uncredited, apparently James Wan) penned the script with Bousman. But then I realized that Saw II is exactly what I feared it would be. An unnecessary, hollow sequel that was probably made with the promise of reaping huge profits from the box office.
If you want a good film that will make you squirm uncomfortably, check out "Three...Extremes". If you're a fan of Saw like I am, you'll probably be quite disappointed by the sequel.
The Aviator (2004)
Hollow Eye Candy
The Aviator. I've always considered Leonardo DiCaprio a good actor in the right role, and Martin Scorsese is one of my favorite directors. I must admit, prior to viewing The Aviator, I knew little about Howard Hughes, except for the fact that he made Hell's Angels and had a psychotic breakdown later in his life. But anyway, I had hope for this movie. Sadly, it left a lot to be desired.
The good news first; the movie was visually amazing. Scorsese and Co. did an excellent job creating the world of Hughes through a generous combination of set pieces, costumes, and CGI effects (most of which did not look phony). There are some exciting moments in The Aviator, most of them involving airplanes (shooting Hell's Angels, crashing in Beverly Hills, etc).
The bad news; the film was almost completely devoid of emotional depth, character development, and structure. This makes a big difference in a film like The Aviator. This sort of thing is what puts a film like Ray or The Elephant Man on top ten lists and sets movies like The Aviator aside from the good ones. Since the film wants us to devote our three hours (believe me, it feels far longer) towards caring about Howard Hughes, it would help a little if we could learn anything from him besides the fact that he wasn't afraid to break limits and push boundaries. I mean, the latter is slightly compelling at first, but it wears thin after a bit, and I began to grow restless for something new about Howard. Leonardo DiCaprio himself is acceptable, yet seems somewhat strained compared to other roles of his. His performance often feels one layered and thin, yet in his defense, John Logan, the screenwriter, gives him very little to work with. Cate Blanchett's accent makes you jump at first, but it also loses it's vigor and becomes two dimensional. These characters are simply animated puppets who impress you upon introduction, but leave you pining for something. There is also very little introduction to Howard himself. One moment his mother is bathing him as a child, and then BAM, he's using his oil profits to finance Hell's Angels. It was structuring like this that made The Aviator feel like a moving photo album that made the audience grow restlessly impatient. I say this because the movie far outstays it's welcome. It clocks in at slightly less than three hours, but it might as well be three hundred. When the "climax" finally hits, we don't know if it's really the end or if we have another decade or two of Howard's life to look forward to. I remember when the credits began to roll, half a dozen people sitting around me cried out, "WHAT?!"
In short, The Aviator felt like an over-sized birthday cake that is nice to look at, but has no flavor, succulence, or zest. Best Picture of 2004? I truly hope that American entertainment has not come to that (especially when "Million Dollar Baby", "Sideways", or even "Finding Neverland" are the contenders). I rest my case.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
I Don't Want it to End!
I've just gone to see The Return of the King today. After waiting for quite a long time freezing my buttocks in the cold outside the theater (this was a Saturday morning) with over a hundred other people, I finally got in and got a great seat (A Note: Stadium Seating is the only way to really experience this movie). When the tedious ads and previews finally ended, the Newline logo screened and the movie began. Nearly 3 and a half hours later, I walked out of the cinema with tears in my eyes. I cried because the film was better than I could have hoped it to be, I cried because it was the most emotionally stirring piece I have ever seen in a theater, but most of all, I cried because the film symbolized the end of this wonderful and unforgettable tale that will be remembered for generations and cherished.
After a delightfully frightening opening flashback of Smeagol's transformation into Gollum, the film picks up where we left Frodo and Sam, in Ithilien, nearing Mordor. The atmosphere here is notably more tense and frightening than it was in The Two Towers, with an undeniable sense of fear and dread lurking up the road. It's scary, but attractive, and drew me right in.
Meanwhile, in the wake of the Helm's Deep victory, Aragorn, Theoden, Gandalf, and co. are partying in Edoras. An unexpected and deadly twist of events though sends Gandalf and Pippin riding to Minas Tirith, the citadel of Gondor, and an absolutely mind blowing, enchanting, and terrific setpiece. There they meet the steward Denethor, who has gone mad over the loss of Boromir and has condemned his other son Faramir to protecting Osgiliath, which is under horrific attack by battalions of orcs. From this point, while the armies of Rohan gather in the North and Aragorn sets out on a terrifying test to claim his position as the king of men (hence the title), Middle Earth prepares for what Gandalf accurately calls, "The Great Battle of our Time".
This of course, is The Battle of Pelennor Fields, which like Peter Jackson said, dwarfs Helm's Deep in scale and excitement. Watching 200000 Orcs, Elephants, Southrons, Trolls, Siege Towers, Wargs, and more besiege the city in what has to be the most spectacular battle scene ever filmed is indescribable. However, the real power of the battle really lies in the feeling behind it. In Helm's Deep, despite the bad odds, there was always a hopeful feeling that Rohan would win. Throughout much of Pelennor Fields, there is a feeling of utter despair, terror, and courage. It never becomes tiresome, is shot brilliantly, and will stay in your mind for days.
Another important thing to mention is the treatment of Frodo and Sam, with their journey to Mordor. Since a lot of the second book was saved for Return of the King, the two hobbits had a lot of ground and places to cover. THankfully, they receive much more screen time here than they did in THe Two Towers, and in truly fantastic (and scary) places. The character of Sam emerges as a true hero and friend in this final chapter, and Sean Astin gives the preformance of his career. Andy Serkis becomes much less funny and pitiful, and more vile and hatable as Gollum, in an absolutely fantastic role. Finally, Elijah Wood gives a final heart breaking and admirable preformance as Frodo, now more hurt and tortured than ever. Their journey is the real center of the movie; the bond between Frodo and Sam, their strength and determination.
The ending for the film couldn't have been more satisfying. Diehard fans of the book may criticize Peter Jackson for changing it a little, but it really suits the film perfectly. If you loved the other movies, I guarantee you will have tears in your eyes by the time the first credit rolls. Kudos for Jackson, an absolute genius and wizard of a filmmaker for bringing this to screen in such splendor and glory.
The acting here is beyond words. Like I said earlier, Sam was my favorite character, but it was hard to choose. Viggo Mortensen made a wonderfully valiant Aragorn here, Sir Ian McKellen still is Gandalf, and Orlando Bloom and John Rhys-Davies are once again hilariously competivite but touchingly close in their friendship as Legolas the Elf, and Gimli the Dwarf. Miranda Otto really impressed me here as Eowyn, who trades in her royal robes for armor and sword here. I'd always liked Billy Boyd (who can really sing!) and Dominic Monhagan as Pippin and Merry, but this was their moment of triumph. The two of them were just wonderful. David Wenham and John Noble were fantastic as the noble Faramir and the crazed Denethor. Their tear-jerking relationship was outstanding and so sad. They were great. Finally, the Orcs themselves rise from scare-inducing baddies to truly brutal and horrible villains (their commander makes the Uruk-Hai look like Oompa Loompas). They even turn the term "Release the prisoners!" into a threat. Just wait and see.
One of the greates parts of the movie is the score. It is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo much better than those of the other films, which is saying a lot because both of the first two had fantastic soundtracks. My favorite score points: Gandalf and Pippin arriving in Minas Tirith, Frodo and Sam climbing Mount Doom, the Finale, the classic Rohan theme, and the score for the heart-breaking last scene in the film. If Howard Shore doesn't win Best Original Score, the Academy will have a lot of hate mail to read.
People say that Mystic River or Cold Mountain will win Best Picture. Not only do I think that they won't but I think they don't deserve it. As much as I liked Mystic River, it did not come close to the marvelry (battles aside) and emotion expressed in Return of the King. And as for Cold Mountain (ugghh) Nicole Kidman may be an Oscar favorite as the genre of the film, but the lack of originality and emotion of the film should have knocked it off the nominee list. This is truly the film of the year. For something you will remember as more than a film you saw at the cinema, get your butt down to the cinema and see The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.
Open Range (2003)
"I reckon this thrilla is abou' as uneven as the hairs on mychin!"
Some critics have compared "Open Range" to Unforgiven, a true Western masterpiece. In some ways, the films are similar. Both have an exciting gunfight as a finale, many calm moments, and gorgeous scenery. These are all good things. What "Open Range" has that Unforgiven thankfully does not, are corny sterotypes, throwaway performances, and some of the most banal dialogue I've heard in a Western ever. Kevin Costner has had a string of awful movies ever since his masterpiece "Dances with Wolves". Maybe he should have taken his triumph as a sign that he's about past his prime as far as acting goes. I guess not though, because his performance in "Open Range" is no greater than that in "The Postman". Much to blame as well, is the simply awful script. Not even the great Robert Duvall, who I hoped would bring some charisma to the film, can recite his lines without sounding like a Western wanna-be. If you are looking for a good Western film, I recommend "Unforgiven", "Shane", "The Outlaw Josey Wales", and "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly". Don't let the overrated reviews fool you. "Open Range" is a hollow, unoriginal, and trashy attempt to steal your money. So before you ask the ticket teller "one for Open Range please", consider some of the better films in theaters (Pirates of the Carribean, Swimming Pool, and 28 Days Later are great examples). You won't regret doing so.