Merry Christmas! This year, I've been watching a lot more untraditional holiday specials and movies, or rediscovering ones I don't watch as much anymore, trying to find new annual favorites, and to break the mundanity of forcing myself to sit down and watch the same holiday films every year. So here's a list of my personal favorite non-traditional holiday watches:
Film:
Joyeux Noel
Die Hard
Lethal Weapon
Black Christmas
Krampus
Silent Night, Deadly Night
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
Batman Returns
Edward Scissorhands
TV Episodes/Specials:
"Kegel the Elf" from The League
The Snowman
"Night of the Meek" from The Twilight Zone
"And All Through the House" from Tales from the Crypt
"A Krampus Carol" from The League
"Confrontation" from Wilfred
A Claymation Christmas Celebration
"A Very Venture Christmas" from The Venture Bros.
"Mr. Grumpy-Pants" from Superjail!
Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol
The Cricket on the Hearth
The Leprechaun's Christmas Gold
Ernest Saves Christmas (if you hate yourself)
"A Very Sunny Christmas" from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia
"Silent Night" from American Horror Story: Asylum
"Birth" and "Afterbirth" from American Horror Story
"O Holy Moly Night" from F is for Family
Arthur's Perfect Christmas
The Town that Santa Forgot
"Christmas Special" from The League of Gentlemen
The Star Wars Holiday Special (only if you enjoy so-bad-it's-funny specials)
"A Very Special Family Guy Freakin' Christmas" from Family Guy
"Road to the North Pole" from Family Guy
"Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire" from The Simpsons
"The Fight Before Christmas" from The Simpsons
"Tis the Fifteenth Season" from The Simpsons
"Woodland Critter Christmas" from South Park
"Sabrina's Christmas Wish" from BoJack Horseman
"It's Christmas in Canada!" from South Park
"A Very Crappy Christmas" from South Park
"Merry Christmas, Charlie Manson!" from South Park
"Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo" from South Park
"Mr. Hankey's Christmas Classics" from South Park
"Red Sleigh Down" from South Park
"HappyHolograms" from South Park
"Black Friday" trilogy from South Park
"A History Channel Thanksgiving" from South Park
"Helen Keller! The Musical" from South Park
"Merry Christmas, Mister Bean" from Mister Bean
"The Draft Dodger" from All in the Family
"Blackadder Christmas Carol" from Blackadder
Friday, December 25, 2015
Saturday, December 19, 2015
Star Wars: The Force Awakens- Perfect example of when hype kills a film
Yesterday, I got to see highly anticipated seventh installment in the revolutionary Star Wars franchise.
Star Wars Episode VII, The Force Awakens:
Since the fall of the Galactic Empire in the original trilogy, Luke Skywalker has retired from his Jedi teaching and gone into hiding. The main heroes have scattered and from the ruins of the Empire has risen the smaller but still mighty First Order, the last remnants of Empire loyalists. To fight this, the Rebel Alliance has evolved into The Resistance to fend off the growing influence of this Order. On the desert planet of Jakku, a scavenger named Rey meets a defective stormtrooper named Finn, who together embark on a journey to join the Resistance to find Luke and defeat the First Order.
In all honesty, I wasn't all that excited when I saw the first teaser trailer last year, as I knew it was coming and it was too far away to be pumped about. But by the time the final trailer rolled out two months ago, I was aboard the hype train like everyone else, eager to see what new breath of fresh air J.J. Abrams could bring to the franchise, perhaps restoring the tarnished reputation left by the prequels. When I saw the film last night, surrounding by drooling fans, I found myself suddenly worried about the film, as anyone would be. When the opening crawl appeared, with John Williams' iconic symphony score rousing at full volume, it was surreal. I was seeing a new Star Wars film-- in a movie theater-- on opening night. Then the opening crawl started. Sure, it seemed like Star Wars type text, but the font seemed a bit off, and the crawl assumed the audience knew about the planets already, but I tried to remind myself that the opening crawl of the originals was kind of basic, too, so I just tried to settle down.
I won't delve into the plot at all (obviously, at least not in this post), but I will say that the story of this was an extreme disappointment. There were at least three major points where I instantly predicted exactly what was about to happen. This was mostly due to the fact that the film was a good 80% fan service. My particular audience ate this up, clapping and cheering blindly merely because they recognize characters from previous films. They even left pauses in the film for the applause. The audience I had seemed to have drunken the collective Disney Kool-Aid before entering because during the previews, which at my theater were all for other Disney-licensed films, they ate everything up, even cheering for The Jungle Book trailer and howling with laughter at the Zootopia trailer, which featured nothing but one joke about how sloths are notoriously slow. I felt like the last sane person in the place, "Am I the only person who can watch things objectively anymore?" The row ahead of my group was full of these fanboys who wouldn't stop rubbing their hands together, eagerly awaiting the next big applause moment when they see something they recognize from previous films.
There was one key character reveal I felt happened far too early in the film and would've been better saved for later. The humor in the film was very grating, Joss Whedon-style humor. I feel like for some reason, people think summer blockbusters need to be either very dark or very funny, no matter how inappropriate either of those things seem for the film. So now Star Wars is packed in with Marvel movie-style jokes in nearly every minute. But that just doesn't feel at all Star Wars to me and I feel it is the thing that will date the movie, as that is just a hip cinema trend right now. If they had restricted themselves to a select few jokes and fan service bits (because some definitely worked better than others), then the film would be better for it by far.
The film lacks a personality of its' own, being a near carbon copy of the basic structure of the original Star Wars, with all of the chemistry and uniqueness sucked away. The main cast were fine actors, but the new actors definitely didn't mesh with the old all that well, especially when the old were so busy delivering fan service it was hard for them to just be invested in the action. A lot of the character relationships feel forced, and while Star Wars wasn't the most depthful film in terms of character arcs, the relationships still felt pretty organic and natural, where here they feel like "Oh, we need the old characters to like these new characters because that's the way it needs to be." There seemed like too many main heroes, to the point where, like in the prequels, it's hard to pinpoint who exactly is our main character, whose is the journey we are following. There are too many character being juggled for a film of this length and scope and too many cameos and too many people cast on name recognition or because they are in popular films and television shows who wind up barely being in the film at all.
The storyline takes far too many hints from the original film, including the main base of the villains, and the three antagonists of this film: General Hux, Kylo Ren, and Supreme Leader Snoke all feel a little too close to Grand Moff Tarkin, Darth Vader, and Emperor Palpatine to really be seen as new characters, though they have minimal changes. Kylo Ren is the villain we spend the most time with, and he is also the least threatening. The trailer smartly left in little footage of him, making him feel mysterious and imposing. In the finished film, his intimidation factor quickly diminishes after the first act, and his entire character motivation actually makes you empathize with him more than fear him, and see him as a tragic villain. Remember, it took three films for Darth Vader to reach the status of tragic villain. We're on film number one and already Ren has had an entire fucking character arc. Where does he even go from here? Look, it's perfectly fine for a main hero to have a shift in character by the end of a film, even if part of a larger story (Hell, Han Solo had that in the original film), but the antagonist, someone we should fear and distrust, should not become mostly empathetic by the end of the first part in a trilogy, especially in a simplistic adventure story like this. The planets featured in this film seem to just be renamed versions of planets we've visited in other films just for the sake of appearing original, when this is just as transparent as the plastic packaging of the toys this movie was created to sell (C-3PO literally is given a red arm so they can have a joke where 3PO mentions it and so they can sell new toys of it). The story also lacks a clear goal. Every film in the original trilogy has a clear and concise goal for our heroes, even if they got sidetracked by other things along the way. These motivations were always clearly explained in the crawl. Star Wars: rescue Princess Leia and blow up Death Star, The Empire Strikes Back: Luke complete Jedi training and Rebels escape Empire, Return of the Jedi: rescue Han Solo and defeat Empire. Even the prequels has fairly clear goals for the heroes, The Phantom Menace: stop Trade Federation from blockading Naboo, Attack of the Clones: investigate Clone Army and stop Separatists, Revenge of the Sith: stop remaining Separatists and investigate Palpatine. In this film, the goal seems to be to find Luke, but then new plotlines appear and suddenly they become the main goal, and then it goes back to finding Luke, leaving the film feeling very unfocused.
The Galactic Empire always had the Nazi imagery prevalent in its' depiction, but here, the imagery feels ridiculously overt. Much like everything else in this film, the charming simplicity of the originals is confused by the writers for excusing beating people over the head with expositions and blatant dialogue. The First Order's symbol also looks oddly reminiscent of the Red Hot Chili Peppers logo.
The mere existence of this film also kind of denotes the happy ending of the original films, and therefore sort of destroys the whole point of the original films. By presenting this idea that the Empire/Sith will always exist in some form kind of makes the Rebellion/Jedi's triumph over them seem pyrrhic and tragically unimportant. Even the title "The Force Awakens" kind of belittles the entire idea of the Force. Now instead of an ever-present force of spiritual energy that anyone can tap into at any time, it is this weird force that comes and goes in intensity depending on the time period. It has to "awaken" when the time is right.
The entire Expanded Universe was scrapped because of this film, something that make me angry considering all the great source material in that EU. They did keep some basic plot elements from later books and comics, but overall retcon that entire line of stories, which creates this odd sort of alternate timeline deal in the Star Wars Universe.
The special effects were excellent, particularly in the choice to have mostly practical effects. The only problem is this oftentime clashes with the more obviously CGI effects. The action sequences were a mixed bag. Rather than building to a large battle at the climax like the original trilogy films always did, with minimal action placed carefully throughout, this film has a lot of smaller action set-pieces, with no big finish that leaves the climax feeling a bit empty. The X-wing battle against Starkiller base (which you see in the trailer, so that's not a spoiler) felt all too familiar and just felt lazy, with no emotional impact whatsoever. The lightsaber duel ditched the flashy and unbelievable acrobatics of the prequels for the more down-to-earth, blunt force approach of the originals, which feels more raw and powerful, so there's a big positive. However, the lightsaber duel lacks the emotional backing that the original duels had. Every lightsaber duel, no matter how brief or awkwardly choreographed, meant something big in the originals. Obi-Wan vs. Darth Vader in the original film signified the end of their entire relationship together, and further cemented Vader's place as a ruthless bad-ass who cuts down his own former friend and master in cold blood. Luke vs. Darth in the second film again cemented Vader as a force to be reckoned with, and showed Luke was not nearly prepared enough to take on a Sith master, and culminated in the biggest and probably most famous twist ending in modern pop culture. Luke vs. Darth in the third and final film shows Luke has grown and mastered his skills, but is still challenged by temptations towards using anger and hatred to win fights, and showed Luke's strength in prevailing over the Dark Side, both in physically defeating Darth, and refusing the Emperor's offer to kill Vader and take his place. Here, it is just bland heroes fight bland villain at end of bland movie for slight resolution.
There is a completely bullshit cliffhanger ending that will disappoint viewers, leaving you wanting more. While some (reviewer Chris Stuckmann, for example) might see this as a positive, I can't say I do. When you leave the theater unsatisfied with the film you got because of a TV show-esque cliffhanger, that's not good filmmaking, that's sacrificing the strength of your story to franchise build (something Disney has gotten really good at with Marvel, and is trying to poison Star Wars with now as well). But, in the same token, there's very little mystery left for the next two films. In trying to satisfy all the abundant fan theories and get those out of the way, the writers and producers seem to have played most of their cards at once, leaving themselves written into a corner for the next two film.
Star Wars: The Force Awakens is a fine blockbuster film. But that's just it. It feels all too similar to other blockbusters (particularly Guardians of the Galaxy, whose tone should not be that of this film), and lacks the creative magic that made the originals so profound. J.J. Abrams seemed to be caught up in being a fan directing a movie franchise he loves and trying to satisfy other fans like him that he forgot to just a make a good movie, instead trying to pander to fanboys and the Marvel and Pixar-loving masses. It is now oversaturated in the new Disney style, and is just a cash-cow of a film with mild entertainment value. It is almost worse than the prequels in a way, as at least those were so bad they were funny; this is just kind of vanilla. The intense hype is having a similar effect to The Phantom Menace: people are going into denial and saying its' one of the best of the Star Wars movies, but in a few years they'll realize it's not all that great and it will be a fun movie for everyone to rip on. I guess my greatest problem is that it just doesn't feel like a Star Wars movie, even less so than the prequels. After only one film, with all its' fanservice and insane amount of ad tie-ins, I'm kind of over this franchise, just like I'm over all Disney licensed products. I don't wish to see two more of these films from equally under-qualified fan directors (not to knock them for being bad or anything, just not for this type of film). Don't believe the hype. Go in with lowered expectations and you'll probably enjoy it more. Try to avoid crowded theaters with fanboys, as their incessant cheering and clapping at every event in the film became unbearable and frustrating. 6.5/10 stars.
(Image: Wikipedia)
Note: I miss the Drew Struzan posters.
Star Wars Episode VII, The Force Awakens:
Since the fall of the Galactic Empire in the original trilogy, Luke Skywalker has retired from his Jedi teaching and gone into hiding. The main heroes have scattered and from the ruins of the Empire has risen the smaller but still mighty First Order, the last remnants of Empire loyalists. To fight this, the Rebel Alliance has evolved into The Resistance to fend off the growing influence of this Order. On the desert planet of Jakku, a scavenger named Rey meets a defective stormtrooper named Finn, who together embark on a journey to join the Resistance to find Luke and defeat the First Order.
In all honesty, I wasn't all that excited when I saw the first teaser trailer last year, as I knew it was coming and it was too far away to be pumped about. But by the time the final trailer rolled out two months ago, I was aboard the hype train like everyone else, eager to see what new breath of fresh air J.J. Abrams could bring to the franchise, perhaps restoring the tarnished reputation left by the prequels. When I saw the film last night, surrounding by drooling fans, I found myself suddenly worried about the film, as anyone would be. When the opening crawl appeared, with John Williams' iconic symphony score rousing at full volume, it was surreal. I was seeing a new Star Wars film-- in a movie theater-- on opening night. Then the opening crawl started. Sure, it seemed like Star Wars type text, but the font seemed a bit off, and the crawl assumed the audience knew about the planets already, but I tried to remind myself that the opening crawl of the originals was kind of basic, too, so I just tried to settle down.
I won't delve into the plot at all (obviously, at least not in this post), but I will say that the story of this was an extreme disappointment. There were at least three major points where I instantly predicted exactly what was about to happen. This was mostly due to the fact that the film was a good 80% fan service. My particular audience ate this up, clapping and cheering blindly merely because they recognize characters from previous films. They even left pauses in the film for the applause. The audience I had seemed to have drunken the collective Disney Kool-Aid before entering because during the previews, which at my theater were all for other Disney-licensed films, they ate everything up, even cheering for The Jungle Book trailer and howling with laughter at the Zootopia trailer, which featured nothing but one joke about how sloths are notoriously slow. I felt like the last sane person in the place, "Am I the only person who can watch things objectively anymore?" The row ahead of my group was full of these fanboys who wouldn't stop rubbing their hands together, eagerly awaiting the next big applause moment when they see something they recognize from previous films.
There was one key character reveal I felt happened far too early in the film and would've been better saved for later. The humor in the film was very grating, Joss Whedon-style humor. I feel like for some reason, people think summer blockbusters need to be either very dark or very funny, no matter how inappropriate either of those things seem for the film. So now Star Wars is packed in with Marvel movie-style jokes in nearly every minute. But that just doesn't feel at all Star Wars to me and I feel it is the thing that will date the movie, as that is just a hip cinema trend right now. If they had restricted themselves to a select few jokes and fan service bits (because some definitely worked better than others), then the film would be better for it by far.
The film lacks a personality of its' own, being a near carbon copy of the basic structure of the original Star Wars, with all of the chemistry and uniqueness sucked away. The main cast were fine actors, but the new actors definitely didn't mesh with the old all that well, especially when the old were so busy delivering fan service it was hard for them to just be invested in the action. A lot of the character relationships feel forced, and while Star Wars wasn't the most depthful film in terms of character arcs, the relationships still felt pretty organic and natural, where here they feel like "Oh, we need the old characters to like these new characters because that's the way it needs to be." There seemed like too many main heroes, to the point where, like in the prequels, it's hard to pinpoint who exactly is our main character, whose is the journey we are following. There are too many character being juggled for a film of this length and scope and too many cameos and too many people cast on name recognition or because they are in popular films and television shows who wind up barely being in the film at all.
The storyline takes far too many hints from the original film, including the main base of the villains, and the three antagonists of this film: General Hux, Kylo Ren, and Supreme Leader Snoke all feel a little too close to Grand Moff Tarkin, Darth Vader, and Emperor Palpatine to really be seen as new characters, though they have minimal changes. Kylo Ren is the villain we spend the most time with, and he is also the least threatening. The trailer smartly left in little footage of him, making him feel mysterious and imposing. In the finished film, his intimidation factor quickly diminishes after the first act, and his entire character motivation actually makes you empathize with him more than fear him, and see him as a tragic villain. Remember, it took three films for Darth Vader to reach the status of tragic villain. We're on film number one and already Ren has had an entire fucking character arc. Where does he even go from here? Look, it's perfectly fine for a main hero to have a shift in character by the end of a film, even if part of a larger story (Hell, Han Solo had that in the original film), but the antagonist, someone we should fear and distrust, should not become mostly empathetic by the end of the first part in a trilogy, especially in a simplistic adventure story like this. The planets featured in this film seem to just be renamed versions of planets we've visited in other films just for the sake of appearing original, when this is just as transparent as the plastic packaging of the toys this movie was created to sell (C-3PO literally is given a red arm so they can have a joke where 3PO mentions it and so they can sell new toys of it). The story also lacks a clear goal. Every film in the original trilogy has a clear and concise goal for our heroes, even if they got sidetracked by other things along the way. These motivations were always clearly explained in the crawl. Star Wars: rescue Princess Leia and blow up Death Star, The Empire Strikes Back: Luke complete Jedi training and Rebels escape Empire, Return of the Jedi: rescue Han Solo and defeat Empire. Even the prequels has fairly clear goals for the heroes, The Phantom Menace: stop Trade Federation from blockading Naboo, Attack of the Clones: investigate Clone Army and stop Separatists, Revenge of the Sith: stop remaining Separatists and investigate Palpatine. In this film, the goal seems to be to find Luke, but then new plotlines appear and suddenly they become the main goal, and then it goes back to finding Luke, leaving the film feeling very unfocused.
The Galactic Empire always had the Nazi imagery prevalent in its' depiction, but here, the imagery feels ridiculously overt. Much like everything else in this film, the charming simplicity of the originals is confused by the writers for excusing beating people over the head with expositions and blatant dialogue. The First Order's symbol also looks oddly reminiscent of the Red Hot Chili Peppers logo.
The mere existence of this film also kind of denotes the happy ending of the original films, and therefore sort of destroys the whole point of the original films. By presenting this idea that the Empire/Sith will always exist in some form kind of makes the Rebellion/Jedi's triumph over them seem pyrrhic and tragically unimportant. Even the title "The Force Awakens" kind of belittles the entire idea of the Force. Now instead of an ever-present force of spiritual energy that anyone can tap into at any time, it is this weird force that comes and goes in intensity depending on the time period. It has to "awaken" when the time is right.
The entire Expanded Universe was scrapped because of this film, something that make me angry considering all the great source material in that EU. They did keep some basic plot elements from later books and comics, but overall retcon that entire line of stories, which creates this odd sort of alternate timeline deal in the Star Wars Universe.
The special effects were excellent, particularly in the choice to have mostly practical effects. The only problem is this oftentime clashes with the more obviously CGI effects. The action sequences were a mixed bag. Rather than building to a large battle at the climax like the original trilogy films always did, with minimal action placed carefully throughout, this film has a lot of smaller action set-pieces, with no big finish that leaves the climax feeling a bit empty. The X-wing battle against Starkiller base (which you see in the trailer, so that's not a spoiler) felt all too familiar and just felt lazy, with no emotional impact whatsoever. The lightsaber duel ditched the flashy and unbelievable acrobatics of the prequels for the more down-to-earth, blunt force approach of the originals, which feels more raw and powerful, so there's a big positive. However, the lightsaber duel lacks the emotional backing that the original duels had. Every lightsaber duel, no matter how brief or awkwardly choreographed, meant something big in the originals. Obi-Wan vs. Darth Vader in the original film signified the end of their entire relationship together, and further cemented Vader's place as a ruthless bad-ass who cuts down his own former friend and master in cold blood. Luke vs. Darth in the second film again cemented Vader as a force to be reckoned with, and showed Luke was not nearly prepared enough to take on a Sith master, and culminated in the biggest and probably most famous twist ending in modern pop culture. Luke vs. Darth in the third and final film shows Luke has grown and mastered his skills, but is still challenged by temptations towards using anger and hatred to win fights, and showed Luke's strength in prevailing over the Dark Side, both in physically defeating Darth, and refusing the Emperor's offer to kill Vader and take his place. Here, it is just bland heroes fight bland villain at end of bland movie for slight resolution.
There is a completely bullshit cliffhanger ending that will disappoint viewers, leaving you wanting more. While some (reviewer Chris Stuckmann, for example) might see this as a positive, I can't say I do. When you leave the theater unsatisfied with the film you got because of a TV show-esque cliffhanger, that's not good filmmaking, that's sacrificing the strength of your story to franchise build (something Disney has gotten really good at with Marvel, and is trying to poison Star Wars with now as well). But, in the same token, there's very little mystery left for the next two films. In trying to satisfy all the abundant fan theories and get those out of the way, the writers and producers seem to have played most of their cards at once, leaving themselves written into a corner for the next two film.
Star Wars: The Force Awakens is a fine blockbuster film. But that's just it. It feels all too similar to other blockbusters (particularly Guardians of the Galaxy, whose tone should not be that of this film), and lacks the creative magic that made the originals so profound. J.J. Abrams seemed to be caught up in being a fan directing a movie franchise he loves and trying to satisfy other fans like him that he forgot to just a make a good movie, instead trying to pander to fanboys and the Marvel and Pixar-loving masses. It is now oversaturated in the new Disney style, and is just a cash-cow of a film with mild entertainment value. It is almost worse than the prequels in a way, as at least those were so bad they were funny; this is just kind of vanilla. The intense hype is having a similar effect to The Phantom Menace: people are going into denial and saying its' one of the best of the Star Wars movies, but in a few years they'll realize it's not all that great and it will be a fun movie for everyone to rip on. I guess my greatest problem is that it just doesn't feel like a Star Wars movie, even less so than the prequels. After only one film, with all its' fanservice and insane amount of ad tie-ins, I'm kind of over this franchise, just like I'm over all Disney licensed products. I don't wish to see two more of these films from equally under-qualified fan directors (not to knock them for being bad or anything, just not for this type of film). Don't believe the hype. Go in with lowered expectations and you'll probably enjoy it more. Try to avoid crowded theaters with fanboys, as their incessant cheering and clapping at every event in the film became unbearable and frustrating. 6.5/10 stars.
(Image: Wikipedia)Note: I miss the Drew Struzan posters.
Friday, December 18, 2015
Selma and Chappie: Two films I wanted to see in theaters and didn't get the chance
Today, I quickly recap two films I saw a while back on a plane ride home from Ireland in July.
Chappie:
Neil Blomkamp's follow-up to Elysium continues his trend of trying to recapture the spirit of his freshman effort District 9 but continuing to disappoint. While I didn't hate it like most people, many scenes that are obviously supposed to be taken seriously come off as laughable. And there are characters the film wants us to sympathize with that are entirely unsympathetic. Hugh Jackman's villainous character feels the most human and relatable out of anyone, and we're supposed to hate him. He only goes full villain at the climax, and it feels out of character and weird. The end reveal is one of the worst I've ever seen, and the only great performance is Sharlto Copley as Chappie. He's always great in these projects, no matter how underwhelming. His lead hero in District 9 was likable and tragic, his villain in Elysium was despicable and vicious, and here, he's vulnerable, funny, and sweet. If one good thing can be said of Blomkamp's filmography, it's that they showcase Copley's range as an actor. Some of the actors were good, but their accents were so thick that even when speaking English they had to be subtitled. The rap duo characters weren't as annoying as I'd heard, but they weren't great, either. The male one is especially unlikable up until the end, and even then I was on the fence. Dev Patel is wasted here. The end song was oddly out of place. Overall, I enjoyed Chappie more than Elysium, but I feel Blomkamp needs to escape these somewhat pretentious sci-fi projects and really advance as a filmmaker. 6/10 stars.
Selma:
This project had a lot of hype, and while the performances are great and the subject matter obviously historically important, I felt this was a kind of boring movie that was obvious Oscar bait. 12 Years a Slave this is not. Sure, there's moments of shocking racism, but nothing about it feels particularly raw, biting, or poignant. It's all just above-average. It feels a little bit like Lee Daniels' The Butler in its' length and lack of attention to detail or character, instead just cramming in as much history as it can. The end song "Glory" by John Legend and Common was excellent and very bold. David Oyelowo fits the bill of MLK Jr. perfectly, and the cast is filled out with great character actors, from Wendell Pierce to Tom Wilkinson to Dylan Baker and Tim Roth and Stephen Root, Michael Papajohn, Ruben Santiago-Hudson, Andre Holland, and Carmen Ejogo. This cast is filled with so much talent, but a lot of it is constricted to bland minor roles so prevalent in these recent biopics. Where's the great biopics of the past, like Malcolm X or Lawrence of Arabia? Is the epic biography film a dead art? It appears so. Selma is entertaining for the most part, though a bit dry, and is ultimately disappointing. 6/10 stars.
(Images: Wikipedia)
Chappie:
Neil Blomkamp's follow-up to Elysium continues his trend of trying to recapture the spirit of his freshman effort District 9 but continuing to disappoint. While I didn't hate it like most people, many scenes that are obviously supposed to be taken seriously come off as laughable. And there are characters the film wants us to sympathize with that are entirely unsympathetic. Hugh Jackman's villainous character feels the most human and relatable out of anyone, and we're supposed to hate him. He only goes full villain at the climax, and it feels out of character and weird. The end reveal is one of the worst I've ever seen, and the only great performance is Sharlto Copley as Chappie. He's always great in these projects, no matter how underwhelming. His lead hero in District 9 was likable and tragic, his villain in Elysium was despicable and vicious, and here, he's vulnerable, funny, and sweet. If one good thing can be said of Blomkamp's filmography, it's that they showcase Copley's range as an actor. Some of the actors were good, but their accents were so thick that even when speaking English they had to be subtitled. The rap duo characters weren't as annoying as I'd heard, but they weren't great, either. The male one is especially unlikable up until the end, and even then I was on the fence. Dev Patel is wasted here. The end song was oddly out of place. Overall, I enjoyed Chappie more than Elysium, but I feel Blomkamp needs to escape these somewhat pretentious sci-fi projects and really advance as a filmmaker. 6/10 stars.
Selma:
This project had a lot of hype, and while the performances are great and the subject matter obviously historically important, I felt this was a kind of boring movie that was obvious Oscar bait. 12 Years a Slave this is not. Sure, there's moments of shocking racism, but nothing about it feels particularly raw, biting, or poignant. It's all just above-average. It feels a little bit like Lee Daniels' The Butler in its' length and lack of attention to detail or character, instead just cramming in as much history as it can. The end song "Glory" by John Legend and Common was excellent and very bold. David Oyelowo fits the bill of MLK Jr. perfectly, and the cast is filled out with great character actors, from Wendell Pierce to Tom Wilkinson to Dylan Baker and Tim Roth and Stephen Root, Michael Papajohn, Ruben Santiago-Hudson, Andre Holland, and Carmen Ejogo. This cast is filled with so much talent, but a lot of it is constricted to bland minor roles so prevalent in these recent biopics. Where's the great biopics of the past, like Malcolm X or Lawrence of Arabia? Is the epic biography film a dead art? It appears so. Selma is entertaining for the most part, though a bit dry, and is ultimately disappointing. 6/10 stars.
(Images: Wikipedia)
Sunday, December 6, 2015
Krampus: The latest holiday horror film from the director of "Trick r Treat"
Krampus:
(Images: Wikipedia, comingsoon.net)
It's the modern holiday seasons: an upper middle-class family is reluctantly having their obnoxious redneck in-laws over for Christmas. Hijinks ensue, resulting in the youngest son taking back his Christmas wish for his family to better themselves. Suddenly, an intense blizzard knocks out the neighborhood's power and prevents road travel. Very quickly, the family begins to realize that a supernatural force is tampering with their lives: the Krampus, the ancient German demon who comes to punish those who do not embrace the Christmas spirit.
I've found the legend of the Krampus fascinating for a while now. The irony of this dark and morbid story being told to children around the happiest season of the year was intriguing to me. So when I heard Michael Dougherty (director of the Halloween horror film Trick r Treat) was doing a film about a family who encounters this creature, I was hyped. Initially the trailers were very dumb, but I was confident it would be a fun little movie. And it was. Slightly disappointing, considering how great Dougherty's first effort was, but still enjoyable.
The humor of the film blends with the horror surprisingly well, and Adam Scott, Toni Collette, Allison Tolman, David Koechner, and Conchata Ferrell were great comic relief in the film, and while initially seeming very unlikable, slowly start to grow on you as the survival portion of the film sets in. Krista Stadler, Emjay Anthony, and Stefania LaVie Owen were good supporting characters, playing the grandmother and two kids, respectively. Some reviewers complained the family was unlikable for the most part, but I found myself sympathizing them more and more as the film went on, and I believe that was Dougherty's intention. However, characters often make dumb, horror movie mistakes, but the tongue-in-cheek nature of the film makes this more understandable.
Krampus himself takes a backseat most of this movie, which was slightly disappointing, but also built suspense to his eventual arrival. His design was pretty great in this movie, paying homage to traditional portrayals, while trying its' own thing. The special effects of the monsters in this film were fantastic, mostly practical effects, though at times the effect of the Jack-in-the-Box creature looked like a Power Rangers monster suit, and one key scene of a character falling was laughable looking and almost ruins the climax. There is, however, a short clay-mation/CG sequence that looks amazing and shows Dougherty hasn't forgotten his background in animation.
The story at times had holes (how much of the town Krampus' snowstorm has enveloped is unclear), and the ending (as Chris Stuckmann pointed out in his review) felt a little too similar to the ending of Jeepers Creepers. The jump scares felt a little cheap, and I know from watching Trick r Treat that Dougherty can do better, and overall you can tell he wasn't having as much fun with the Christmas horror concept as with the Halloween one. In fact, the PG-13 rating seems to drag down this project with its' obviously censored dialogue ("Get away from my kids, you fudger!") and lack of blood. I'm all for "what you see is less scary that what you don't", but with a big, dumb, in-your-face monster movie like this, some gore would be a good payoff but I never got that. Trick r Treat was rated R, and therefore went all-out with the gore and was better for it.
The film felt longer than it was, but that's a good thing. It felt like a solid length for this type of movie. Krampus is an entertaining movie, albeit a slight let-down. Best case scenario: it encourages more viewers to check out Dougherty's Trick r Treat, which, unlike this film, was given a criminally limited theatrical run and then went straight to video and on demand for vague reasons, despite having a good budget and cast. Worst case scenario: it disappoints people and discourages them from watching ore of Dougherty's horror films, which would be a shame, as Dougherty is a talented filmmaker who should branch out and do more work outside of just writing. Give this one a watch, and then go out and buy Trick r Treat for next Halloween (or just watch it now, it doesn't matter). 7/10 stars.
(Images: Wikipedia, comingsoon.net)
Thursday, November 26, 2015
The Peanuts Movie: The first movie I've seen this year to surpass expectations for it
Today, I look at the first modern big-screen adaptation of Charles M. Schulz's classic comics.
The Peanuts Movie:
Charlie Brown, the social pariah of his school and community, seems to never have the upper hand on life. His constant embarrassments and failures only reinforce his peers' views of him. Suddenly, a new student arrives: a little red-haired girl. Instantly becoming infatuated with her, Charlie Brown must find a way to impress her while not making a fool of himself, as he always does.
It's probably the most basic film I've seen this year. There's no twist or action scene or grand epic finale, it's just a simple, nice film. The only surprise I had was how much I enjoyed it. Even though I'm very nostalgic for the Peanuts cartoons, I was kind of on-the-fence about this film. BlueSky Animation is sometimes hit-or-miss with their projects, and I'm so nostalgic for the characters it seemed like it would be surreal to see these characters in a new, modern take. Luckily, the people who wrote the film are Schulz's own son and grandson, and the studio was able to get his widow on board, so my worries were slightly eased. Finally, after seeing the film, I can say it felt like a full-length Peanuts special, though with slightly more cohesion, and that's the highest compliment paid to it. It didn't update any of the timeless feel of the strips and specials, with the characters making no references to any modern tech or social media, which is something they could have so easily done to appeal to the modern audiences. This was a film made by people who cared enough to try and accurately replicate the look and feel of the original material, while adding in the polish of modern animation and adding in their own takes on characters.
The animation is so unique, it looks exactly like a 3D version of Schulz's original drawings, and some of the sequences, such as Snoopy's fantasies, provided some nice visual flair among the sometimes simplistic environments explored by our main characters, and showed the full scope of what can be done in a Peanuts cartoon now. The opening animated short featuring Ice Age's scrat was fairly amusing as well and had some nice animation, but felt a little jarring when placed next to the tonally so distinctive Peanuts.
The opening 20th Century Fox logo's theme music being played by Schroeder on piano reminded me of The Simpsons Movie featuring Ralph Wiggum wailing the Fox theme music. The ending credits feature a character dancing by whatever credit is being shown on screen at the time, and they put the detail of having Schroeder as the music icon, and it's the little touches like that that show me that people who made this put a lot of thought into it.
The story, like I said, is charming in its' simplicity. While the ending is not nearly as melancholy or bluntly realistic as the strips and specials could sometimes be, it still retains the theme of failure as just a part of life that Schulz included many times in his work. The writers included some nice references to the strips and previous specials if you are familiar with them (a moving truck company is named after Peanuts producers Lee Mendelson and Bill Melendez), but doesn't rely on one's nostalgia for them to make it a great movie. There were time in the film where I was actually on the edge-of-my-seat because I could so relate to Charlie Brown's fear of being in front of his peers trying to do something, his fears of failure in front of his peers, etc.
The music by Christophe Beck is great, as it is able to try and replicate Vince Guaraldi's unmistakable style that he used in scoring the original cartoons, but doesn't feel like a carbon copy. The only complaints about the music are the uses of pop songs: once in a montage, and over the end credits, with at least one being by Meghan Trainor. They don't fit with the end of the movie at all and I feel are the only things that could date the film.
The voice acting is excellent, with most of the performers replicating the sound of the original voice actors remarkably. Bill Melendez, who passed away, still voices Snoopy and Woodstock through archival voice recordings.
The only other complaint I have with the film is the fact that it would make for a great film to watch for the holidays, only the climax takes place in summer, which kind of throws that off. But you almost can't watch it any other time of year, because 3/4 of it is set in the holiday season.
The Peanuts Movie is brilliant in its' simple, down-to-earth approach. It is non-pretentious, and has no need for the spectacle seen in so many animated features these days. Not since Wreck-It-Ralph has an animated film come along that has touched me in a way that I can't really explain, but one came around again: this one. Especially after the disappointments of Frozen and Big Hero 6 and the semi-disappointment of Inside Out, and unlike Goosebumps, it doesn't almost entirely rely on nostalgia to keep you entertained. No need to modernize or reference pop culture every few minutes for cheap laughs, just telling a nice, uplifting story. I don't know if it's just my nostalgia talking, but it made me feel almost like a kid again watching it, and it's the first film this year to surpass expectations I had for it, and the first film since Sicario I've wanted to go back and see again, only even moreso than that film. I can see myself watching it in coming years during the holiday season along with the other Peanuts specials. If you have no attachment to the franchise at all, you can still appreciate it as an above-average family film. If you do enjoy the franchise, you'll probably love this movie. This is something I think it is safe to say Charles Schulz would have been proud to call his own. 8/10 stars.
(Image: Wikipedia)
The Peanuts Movie:
Charlie Brown, the social pariah of his school and community, seems to never have the upper hand on life. His constant embarrassments and failures only reinforce his peers' views of him. Suddenly, a new student arrives: a little red-haired girl. Instantly becoming infatuated with her, Charlie Brown must find a way to impress her while not making a fool of himself, as he always does.
It's probably the most basic film I've seen this year. There's no twist or action scene or grand epic finale, it's just a simple, nice film. The only surprise I had was how much I enjoyed it. Even though I'm very nostalgic for the Peanuts cartoons, I was kind of on-the-fence about this film. BlueSky Animation is sometimes hit-or-miss with their projects, and I'm so nostalgic for the characters it seemed like it would be surreal to see these characters in a new, modern take. Luckily, the people who wrote the film are Schulz's own son and grandson, and the studio was able to get his widow on board, so my worries were slightly eased. Finally, after seeing the film, I can say it felt like a full-length Peanuts special, though with slightly more cohesion, and that's the highest compliment paid to it. It didn't update any of the timeless feel of the strips and specials, with the characters making no references to any modern tech or social media, which is something they could have so easily done to appeal to the modern audiences. This was a film made by people who cared enough to try and accurately replicate the look and feel of the original material, while adding in the polish of modern animation and adding in their own takes on characters.
The animation is so unique, it looks exactly like a 3D version of Schulz's original drawings, and some of the sequences, such as Snoopy's fantasies, provided some nice visual flair among the sometimes simplistic environments explored by our main characters, and showed the full scope of what can be done in a Peanuts cartoon now. The opening animated short featuring Ice Age's scrat was fairly amusing as well and had some nice animation, but felt a little jarring when placed next to the tonally so distinctive Peanuts.
The opening 20th Century Fox logo's theme music being played by Schroeder on piano reminded me of The Simpsons Movie featuring Ralph Wiggum wailing the Fox theme music. The ending credits feature a character dancing by whatever credit is being shown on screen at the time, and they put the detail of having Schroeder as the music icon, and it's the little touches like that that show me that people who made this put a lot of thought into it.
The story, like I said, is charming in its' simplicity. While the ending is not nearly as melancholy or bluntly realistic as the strips and specials could sometimes be, it still retains the theme of failure as just a part of life that Schulz included many times in his work. The writers included some nice references to the strips and previous specials if you are familiar with them (a moving truck company is named after Peanuts producers Lee Mendelson and Bill Melendez), but doesn't rely on one's nostalgia for them to make it a great movie. There were time in the film where I was actually on the edge-of-my-seat because I could so relate to Charlie Brown's fear of being in front of his peers trying to do something, his fears of failure in front of his peers, etc.
The music by Christophe Beck is great, as it is able to try and replicate Vince Guaraldi's unmistakable style that he used in scoring the original cartoons, but doesn't feel like a carbon copy. The only complaints about the music are the uses of pop songs: once in a montage, and over the end credits, with at least one being by Meghan Trainor. They don't fit with the end of the movie at all and I feel are the only things that could date the film.
The voice acting is excellent, with most of the performers replicating the sound of the original voice actors remarkably. Bill Melendez, who passed away, still voices Snoopy and Woodstock through archival voice recordings.
The only other complaint I have with the film is the fact that it would make for a great film to watch for the holidays, only the climax takes place in summer, which kind of throws that off. But you almost can't watch it any other time of year, because 3/4 of it is set in the holiday season.
The Peanuts Movie is brilliant in its' simple, down-to-earth approach. It is non-pretentious, and has no need for the spectacle seen in so many animated features these days. Not since Wreck-It-Ralph has an animated film come along that has touched me in a way that I can't really explain, but one came around again: this one. Especially after the disappointments of Frozen and Big Hero 6 and the semi-disappointment of Inside Out, and unlike Goosebumps, it doesn't almost entirely rely on nostalgia to keep you entertained. No need to modernize or reference pop culture every few minutes for cheap laughs, just telling a nice, uplifting story. I don't know if it's just my nostalgia talking, but it made me feel almost like a kid again watching it, and it's the first film this year to surpass expectations I had for it, and the first film since Sicario I've wanted to go back and see again, only even moreso than that film. I can see myself watching it in coming years during the holiday season along with the other Peanuts specials. If you have no attachment to the franchise at all, you can still appreciate it as an above-average family film. If you do enjoy the franchise, you'll probably love this movie. This is something I think it is safe to say Charles Schulz would have been proud to call his own. 8/10 stars.
(Image: Wikipedia)
Sunday, November 22, 2015
The Martian: Overhyped science fiction film with some nice touches
Today, I take a look at a film that came out almost two months ago but people are still going out in droves to see.
The Martian:
During a mission to Mars, an intense storm hits, separating astronaut and botanist Mark Watney from the rest of his team. Believing him dead, they return to their primary space station to return to Earth. Watney is miraculously alive, however, and must figure out a way to survive on the harsh planet until rescue can arrive for him.
This movie's hype was pretty amazing considering ti's just a run-of-the-mill sci-fi movie that just happens to have an ensemble cast of famous stars. I haven't read the novel by Andy Weir, though I fully intend to, so I'm judging the film solely on its' own merits. Matt Damon is a very strong lead, with some nice funny dialogue, but never does he feel too tongue-in-cheek, he knew when to play the situation straight and play out the gravity of his situation. The ensemble cast is too big to list here, but I felt they were all fine. A bit typecast (and cast solely on name recognition it seems on the whole), but decent. Major critique though: there was not one supporting role I felt could've not been filled by any other actor and been just as fine. Everyone was just sort of bland, as with most ensembles nowadays. I also found it amusing that they made Tolkien references, when Sean Bean, featured here, was in the Lord of the Rings films. But they aren't the real focus of the film. Damon is the glue that holds the film together, and, of course, the suspense.
For a science fiction movie that isn't an adventure film this story had some great suspense. Every problem that is solved only serves as a catalyst for the next problem, so the movie never feels boring. Not only that, but there is a surprisingly squirm-inducing self-surgery scene early on that was fairly ballsy for a big movie like this to feature. And for an October release, this has all the polish of a summer blockbuster. It remind me of Interstellar quite a bit.
Much like that film from last fall, this is a movie that tests your patience. It is almost draining, as so much has happened by the end that you want to feel invested, but ultimately feel like you should just go home and go to sleep. And, much like Interstellar, some of the designs felt a little too reminiscent of other science fiction efforts (including Ridley Scott's own Prometheus).
Drew Goddard (the writer) also exhausted their two "fuck" limit for a PG-13 film far too early. If you don't known the MPAA generally likes to keep the uses of the word "fuck" in PG-13 films to about one or two tops, excluding inaudible uses and completely excluding uses in the sexual connotation. This film used it up a little too early, and got away with it a few times (mouthing the word, not saying it), but at certain times, (Minor Spoiler Here) the character is typing a message and is using the word "fuck", and other characters' reactions suggest it is uncensored, but then it is censored on-screen. Not only does that take me out of the movie for being lazy, it also completely seems out of character for Watney to self-censor.
Ridley Scott has produced better work than this, so it is sad to see that this is most successful film of his career. However, The Martian is an enjoyable, if predictable and patience-straining movie that relies a lot of name recognition in its' casting choices. It's about on par with Interstellar for me, in terms of both entertainment factor and overlong run time (and both feature a stranded Matt Damon). 6.5/10 stars.
(Image: Wikipedia)
The Martian:
During a mission to Mars, an intense storm hits, separating astronaut and botanist Mark Watney from the rest of his team. Believing him dead, they return to their primary space station to return to Earth. Watney is miraculously alive, however, and must figure out a way to survive on the harsh planet until rescue can arrive for him.
This movie's hype was pretty amazing considering ti's just a run-of-the-mill sci-fi movie that just happens to have an ensemble cast of famous stars. I haven't read the novel by Andy Weir, though I fully intend to, so I'm judging the film solely on its' own merits. Matt Damon is a very strong lead, with some nice funny dialogue, but never does he feel too tongue-in-cheek, he knew when to play the situation straight and play out the gravity of his situation. The ensemble cast is too big to list here, but I felt they were all fine. A bit typecast (and cast solely on name recognition it seems on the whole), but decent. Major critique though: there was not one supporting role I felt could've not been filled by any other actor and been just as fine. Everyone was just sort of bland, as with most ensembles nowadays. I also found it amusing that they made Tolkien references, when Sean Bean, featured here, was in the Lord of the Rings films. But they aren't the real focus of the film. Damon is the glue that holds the film together, and, of course, the suspense.
For a science fiction movie that isn't an adventure film this story had some great suspense. Every problem that is solved only serves as a catalyst for the next problem, so the movie never feels boring. Not only that, but there is a surprisingly squirm-inducing self-surgery scene early on that was fairly ballsy for a big movie like this to feature. And for an October release, this has all the polish of a summer blockbuster. It remind me of Interstellar quite a bit.
Much like that film from last fall, this is a movie that tests your patience. It is almost draining, as so much has happened by the end that you want to feel invested, but ultimately feel like you should just go home and go to sleep. And, much like Interstellar, some of the designs felt a little too reminiscent of other science fiction efforts (including Ridley Scott's own Prometheus).
Drew Goddard (the writer) also exhausted their two "fuck" limit for a PG-13 film far too early. If you don't known the MPAA generally likes to keep the uses of the word "fuck" in PG-13 films to about one or two tops, excluding inaudible uses and completely excluding uses in the sexual connotation. This film used it up a little too early, and got away with it a few times (mouthing the word, not saying it), but at certain times, (Minor Spoiler Here) the character is typing a message and is using the word "fuck", and other characters' reactions suggest it is uncensored, but then it is censored on-screen. Not only does that take me out of the movie for being lazy, it also completely seems out of character for Watney to self-censor.
Ridley Scott has produced better work than this, so it is sad to see that this is most successful film of his career. However, The Martian is an enjoyable, if predictable and patience-straining movie that relies a lot of name recognition in its' casting choices. It's about on par with Interstellar for me, in terms of both entertainment factor and overlong run time (and both feature a stranded Matt Damon). 6.5/10 stars.
(Image: Wikipedia)
R.I.P. Gunnar Hansen
On Saturday November 7, the horror film world lost Gunnar Hansen, one of its' best known icons. Though Hansen hadn't been doing too much work as of late, he cemented his place in film history, being the first and best actor to portray mentally retarded serial killer cannibal Leatherface in the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre in 1974. His portrayal felt so real and raw and terrifying that his lack of other notable work is completely insignificant in comparison to his lasting influence on the entire world of pop culture and horror cinema, and his amazing performance in a legendary movie.
Gunnar Hansen
1947-2015 (age: 68)
(Images: Wikipedia, fastcocreate.com)
Friday, November 6, 2015
Spectre: Bond sequel left in the shadow of "Skyfall"
The 24th installment of the Bond franchise may be a sign of Craig retiring from the series.
(Spoilers for all previous Daniel Craig films below!)
Spectre:
After the death of M and the partial destruction of the MI6 organization in Skyfall, James Bond has been on the trail of an elusive criminal organization. His only clues are a ring with an octopus emblem, and some unclear ties to the Quantum organization, Le Chiffre, and Raoul Silva. As Bond becomes entangled in an increasingly vast web of terrorist plots, as well as dealing with MI6's new merger with MI5 under the leadership of the surveillance-obsessed C, he is forced to confront his failures as a spy and as a human being, and come face-to-face with a ghost from the past.
I was hyped for this films from the word "Go." The trailers, the director, the cast, and even the title got me pumped for a Skyfall-esque adventure that would surely leave Mission:Impossible- Rouge Nation in the dust. What I got was an uneven film that wound up not even surpassing the slightly above mediocre Rogue Nation, let alone leaving it far behind.
Daniel Craig and the returning cast are all still very good, with Ben Whishaw's Q given more to do (and Naomie Harris' Moneypenney and Rory Kinnear's Tanner even less), and Craig still remaining my favorite Bond. Dave Bautista was good as the hulking enforcer Mr. Hinx (his lack of dialogue was also a nice touch and a throwback to older Bond henchmen), and Andrew Scott as the meddling C was a fantastic addition, though he is a bit typecast in these type of roles since his appearance in Sherlock. Lea Seydoux's Bond girl Dr. Swann was a definite improvement over Silva's disposable mistress in the last film, and feels like her and Bond have actual chemistry. Monica Bellucci's character was literally just there for exposition and eye candy. She's almost pointless. There are a few returning actors whose appearances I will not spoil, but it was nice to see them back, albeit briefly. I will touch upon Christoph Waltz in a bit.
The action sequences are good by Bond standards, but do not feel as innovative, raw, or well-constructed as in Skyfall or Casino Royale. The cinematography isn't as stunning as the last film either, despite being from the same cinematographer as Interstellar, Her, and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, and sharing the same director, Sam Mendes. I will give it this, the opening tracking shot was extremely impressive (the opening scene's visual palate even felt similar to Live and Let Die) and the location scouts were brilliant. This is also more of a globe-trotting adventure than either Skyfall or Casino Royale, another semi-throwback. However, this film seems to try to throwback a little too often. The entire first half, particularly in the car chase sequence in Rome, feel a little Roger Mooreesque, not only for my tastes, but for Craig's Bond. However, it never falls into the laughable territory of Moore's later films or Die Another Day.
The music by Thomas Newman is unique for a Bond film, almost Elfmanesque at times. But the music is far from the best part about the film, as evident by the opening song.
The opening song "Writing's on the Wall" by Sam Smith, was written with his producer in about 20 minutes and it shows. The vocals by Smith are exceedingly impressive, but the instruments are so mellow and muted it is hard to find a hummable tune and it ultimately comes off as forgettable. The song feels like it is trying to be Adele's "Skyfall" and doesn't try too many new things, and ultimately builds to nothing and peters out at the end, much like the film's last act. The song has grown on me the more I've listened to it, but when I first heard it when I saw the film, I was underwhelmed. I wouldn't usually critique a theme this much, but the opening song is such an integral part of the Bond formula. This song initially felt like it didn't fit but it's slowly felt more at home in the Bond music library, definitely better than Madonna or Jack White/Alicia Keys' efforts, which still, after multiple years of listening, don't feel like Bond song material. The opening credits sequence that accompanies it also feels slightly lazy, with repetitive visuals that don't feel as intriguing or as striking as those in the openings of Skyfall or Casino.
As far as story goes, this one is surprisingly lackluster. There's confusing romances (particularly a short-lived one between Bond and Bellucci's character), some occasionally awkward or ill-timed humor, and this one suspends disbelief a lot more, especially considering Craig's more gritty take on the role (people take unrealistic beatings and walk away barely scathed, there's escapes that logically make no sense, etc.). There's even a scene where a man has his eyes gouged out and it comes off oddly tame and unbelievable. I wasn't expecting a lot of gore, as this is still a PG-13 movie, and gore is sometimes less effective, but the man who was being killed seemed oddly restrained for a man having his eyes torn out. He didn't scream or anything, just kind of grunted in pain. That came off as a little silly and a scene that definitely could've been handled better. The villain also doesn't really appear until the last act, which would've been fine, only they rush his reveal, motivation, etc. all in the final act rather than building it up as they have in previous entries. There is also a torture scene in the film that sounds great on paper but is mishandled and doesn't feel as vicious or disturbing as the one in Casino Royale, which sounds laughable on paper.
The climax is my biggest story gripe. It doesn't feel as personal, unique, or spectacular as the one in Skyfall, and ultimately feels rushed and all too similar to the climax of Rogue Nation, which sucks considering both films already had similar set-ups, and I wanted to see this film do something different. The second act is very talky, as like previous Craig films, but this one never feels like the dialogue is all that investing or that the stakes are all that high, so the middle drags for quite a bit and comes off as dry. The story, at least the bare bones of it, is very similar to Skyfall in many respects (again, same director) and feels like it took everything that film did well and knocked it down several pegs. Even C's character feels like what the character Mallory could've become in the last film given a more cliche script.
I wouldn't usually compare this film so much with its' predecessors, but it forces you to. For one, this is the only direct Bond sequel aside from Quantum of Solace, and it serves as a connector between all of Craig's film, bringing his take on Bond full circle, something I enjoyed, but also felt cemented his impending retirement from the franchise. All this and I still haven't talked about the worst part of the movie: the villain.
Christoph Waltz is a great actor. Fantastic even. But here, he just isn't that good. Not that his performance is bad, but he's given so little to do, so little motivation and background to work with. The motivation given is so dumb and cliche and simplistic it's insulting, especially for a character with so much potential. The motivations of Silva and Le Chiffre in the previous film were simple, too, but original and interesting, and almost made them a tad empathetic. Here, there's nothing human about this character, and while that may work for some villains, here, it plays the opposite way: he's more cardboard cutout than person in this role. The fact that he and Seydoux are paired here again only reminds me of how much a better villain he made in Inglorious Basterds. Despite the seeming perfect casting of this character, he just feels weak compared to Silva and Le Chiffre. I'll delve even deeper into this in the semi-Spoiler talk below.
Spectre is a worthy sequel to Skyfall and neatly ties up Craig's series (and the Bond timeline in general, but more on that below). However, this connection to the other films will prevent newcomers from enjoying this film if they've never seen one of Craig's Bond films. The film isn't perfect, nowhere near, and it's more than slightly disappointing. I heard negative buzz about the film before going in, which lowered my expectations exponentially, which is great, because I feel as if I went in with my initial high expectations, I would've hated it through-and-through. This is decent conclusion to the Craig Bond series (if it is one, but it sure feels like it), but is not all it could have been. Is it the worst Bond film in 30 years, as some have speculated? Hell no. We still have Die Another Day and the later Roger Moore library of films. I really wanted to give this one a 7, but I can't lie to myself or you, the reader, about how much I enjoyed this. 6.5/10 stars.
My reviews of the other Craig Bond films:
http://mattcottermovies.blogspot.com/2012/11/daniel-craig-bond-trilogy.html
A review that elaborates upon some of my complaints, but overall a differing view than mine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbe5sJUg1KA
An entertaining reddit thread on the film (SPOILERS):
https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/3qsd4d/official_discussion_spectre_uk_release_spoilers/
(Image: Wikipedia)
Semi-Spoiler Segment:
I will not give away the identity of the villain, as it completely ruins the mystery of the film, but I will say the name initially given (Franz Oberhauser) is not his name by the end of the film. Given the title, if you are familiar with Bond history, you can easily guess who this is. The problem is the same as in Star Trek: Into Darkness: the reveal of the villain's true identity will mean nothing to you as an audience member if you are not an already established fan of the franchise. The other problem with this is I think what happened is the writers said "We can write a sub-par character and just attach an iconic Bond villain to it and pass this sub-par character off on icon status alone and pure name recognition". Also, to soil the name of such an iconic villain by underwriting them, giving them an abysmally overdone motivation for vengeance, and rushing their entire character arc and relationship with Bond is disgraceful to the franchise. It's funny: Skyfall's villain was using a fake name, too. But Silva was revealed to be some nobody agent named Rodriguez we'd never heard of before. As a result, the writers had to make him distinct to stand on his own, and is therefore more memorable and impactful than the supposedly iconic villain in this film. However, this villain reveal ties together the entirety of the Bond timeline. Here's my theory: It's no doubt that Casino Royale is the first Bond novel, and therefore is his first assignment ever in both literary and films worlds. Quantum of Solace is a direct sequel, so that's second in the timeline. Then the Pierce Brosnan timeline happens, as they also feature Judi Dench as M. Then Skyfall, which drops a reference to GoldenEye as well as killing off Dench's M, cementing that this takes place after the Brosnan era. Then Spectre, which is a direct sequel to Skyfall and establishes one of Bond's most recurring and elusive nemeses and re-establishes M as a man, as he was in the older films. This is the film that leads to the original series of films, at leasts the pre-Brosnan ones, and therefore Spectre solidifies the Bond timeline. It may just be my theory, but I feel its' the best one I've heard, if you want to accept that there is any sense of continuity, which Bond films have never been too concerned with.
(Spoilers for all previous Daniel Craig films below!)
Spectre:
After the death of M and the partial destruction of the MI6 organization in Skyfall, James Bond has been on the trail of an elusive criminal organization. His only clues are a ring with an octopus emblem, and some unclear ties to the Quantum organization, Le Chiffre, and Raoul Silva. As Bond becomes entangled in an increasingly vast web of terrorist plots, as well as dealing with MI6's new merger with MI5 under the leadership of the surveillance-obsessed C, he is forced to confront his failures as a spy and as a human being, and come face-to-face with a ghost from the past.
I was hyped for this films from the word "Go." The trailers, the director, the cast, and even the title got me pumped for a Skyfall-esque adventure that would surely leave Mission:Impossible- Rouge Nation in the dust. What I got was an uneven film that wound up not even surpassing the slightly above mediocre Rogue Nation, let alone leaving it far behind.
Daniel Craig and the returning cast are all still very good, with Ben Whishaw's Q given more to do (and Naomie Harris' Moneypenney and Rory Kinnear's Tanner even less), and Craig still remaining my favorite Bond. Dave Bautista was good as the hulking enforcer Mr. Hinx (his lack of dialogue was also a nice touch and a throwback to older Bond henchmen), and Andrew Scott as the meddling C was a fantastic addition, though he is a bit typecast in these type of roles since his appearance in Sherlock. Lea Seydoux's Bond girl Dr. Swann was a definite improvement over Silva's disposable mistress in the last film, and feels like her and Bond have actual chemistry. Monica Bellucci's character was literally just there for exposition and eye candy. She's almost pointless. There are a few returning actors whose appearances I will not spoil, but it was nice to see them back, albeit briefly. I will touch upon Christoph Waltz in a bit.
The action sequences are good by Bond standards, but do not feel as innovative, raw, or well-constructed as in Skyfall or Casino Royale. The cinematography isn't as stunning as the last film either, despite being from the same cinematographer as Interstellar, Her, and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, and sharing the same director, Sam Mendes. I will give it this, the opening tracking shot was extremely impressive (the opening scene's visual palate even felt similar to Live and Let Die) and the location scouts were brilliant. This is also more of a globe-trotting adventure than either Skyfall or Casino Royale, another semi-throwback. However, this film seems to try to throwback a little too often. The entire first half, particularly in the car chase sequence in Rome, feel a little Roger Mooreesque, not only for my tastes, but for Craig's Bond. However, it never falls into the laughable territory of Moore's later films or Die Another Day.
The music by Thomas Newman is unique for a Bond film, almost Elfmanesque at times. But the music is far from the best part about the film, as evident by the opening song.
The opening song "Writing's on the Wall" by Sam Smith, was written with his producer in about 20 minutes and it shows. The vocals by Smith are exceedingly impressive, but the instruments are so mellow and muted it is hard to find a hummable tune and it ultimately comes off as forgettable. The song feels like it is trying to be Adele's "Skyfall" and doesn't try too many new things, and ultimately builds to nothing and peters out at the end, much like the film's last act. The song has grown on me the more I've listened to it, but when I first heard it when I saw the film, I was underwhelmed. I wouldn't usually critique a theme this much, but the opening song is such an integral part of the Bond formula. This song initially felt like it didn't fit but it's slowly felt more at home in the Bond music library, definitely better than Madonna or Jack White/Alicia Keys' efforts, which still, after multiple years of listening, don't feel like Bond song material. The opening credits sequence that accompanies it also feels slightly lazy, with repetitive visuals that don't feel as intriguing or as striking as those in the openings of Skyfall or Casino.
As far as story goes, this one is surprisingly lackluster. There's confusing romances (particularly a short-lived one between Bond and Bellucci's character), some occasionally awkward or ill-timed humor, and this one suspends disbelief a lot more, especially considering Craig's more gritty take on the role (people take unrealistic beatings and walk away barely scathed, there's escapes that logically make no sense, etc.). There's even a scene where a man has his eyes gouged out and it comes off oddly tame and unbelievable. I wasn't expecting a lot of gore, as this is still a PG-13 movie, and gore is sometimes less effective, but the man who was being killed seemed oddly restrained for a man having his eyes torn out. He didn't scream or anything, just kind of grunted in pain. That came off as a little silly and a scene that definitely could've been handled better. The villain also doesn't really appear until the last act, which would've been fine, only they rush his reveal, motivation, etc. all in the final act rather than building it up as they have in previous entries. There is also a torture scene in the film that sounds great on paper but is mishandled and doesn't feel as vicious or disturbing as the one in Casino Royale, which sounds laughable on paper.
The climax is my biggest story gripe. It doesn't feel as personal, unique, or spectacular as the one in Skyfall, and ultimately feels rushed and all too similar to the climax of Rogue Nation, which sucks considering both films already had similar set-ups, and I wanted to see this film do something different. The second act is very talky, as like previous Craig films, but this one never feels like the dialogue is all that investing or that the stakes are all that high, so the middle drags for quite a bit and comes off as dry. The story, at least the bare bones of it, is very similar to Skyfall in many respects (again, same director) and feels like it took everything that film did well and knocked it down several pegs. Even C's character feels like what the character Mallory could've become in the last film given a more cliche script.
I wouldn't usually compare this film so much with its' predecessors, but it forces you to. For one, this is the only direct Bond sequel aside from Quantum of Solace, and it serves as a connector between all of Craig's film, bringing his take on Bond full circle, something I enjoyed, but also felt cemented his impending retirement from the franchise. All this and I still haven't talked about the worst part of the movie: the villain.
Christoph Waltz is a great actor. Fantastic even. But here, he just isn't that good. Not that his performance is bad, but he's given so little to do, so little motivation and background to work with. The motivation given is so dumb and cliche and simplistic it's insulting, especially for a character with so much potential. The motivations of Silva and Le Chiffre in the previous film were simple, too, but original and interesting, and almost made them a tad empathetic. Here, there's nothing human about this character, and while that may work for some villains, here, it plays the opposite way: he's more cardboard cutout than person in this role. The fact that he and Seydoux are paired here again only reminds me of how much a better villain he made in Inglorious Basterds. Despite the seeming perfect casting of this character, he just feels weak compared to Silva and Le Chiffre. I'll delve even deeper into this in the semi-Spoiler talk below.
Spectre is a worthy sequel to Skyfall and neatly ties up Craig's series (and the Bond timeline in general, but more on that below). However, this connection to the other films will prevent newcomers from enjoying this film if they've never seen one of Craig's Bond films. The film isn't perfect, nowhere near, and it's more than slightly disappointing. I heard negative buzz about the film before going in, which lowered my expectations exponentially, which is great, because I feel as if I went in with my initial high expectations, I would've hated it through-and-through. This is decent conclusion to the Craig Bond series (if it is one, but it sure feels like it), but is not all it could have been. Is it the worst Bond film in 30 years, as some have speculated? Hell no. We still have Die Another Day and the later Roger Moore library of films. I really wanted to give this one a 7, but I can't lie to myself or you, the reader, about how much I enjoyed this. 6.5/10 stars.
My reviews of the other Craig Bond films:
http://mattcottermovies.blogspot.com/2012/11/daniel-craig-bond-trilogy.html
A review that elaborates upon some of my complaints, but overall a differing view than mine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbe5sJUg1KA
An entertaining reddit thread on the film (SPOILERS):
https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/3qsd4d/official_discussion_spectre_uk_release_spoilers/
(Image: Wikipedia)Semi-Spoiler Segment:
I will not give away the identity of the villain, as it completely ruins the mystery of the film, but I will say the name initially given (Franz Oberhauser) is not his name by the end of the film. Given the title, if you are familiar with Bond history, you can easily guess who this is. The problem is the same as in Star Trek: Into Darkness: the reveal of the villain's true identity will mean nothing to you as an audience member if you are not an already established fan of the franchise. The other problem with this is I think what happened is the writers said "We can write a sub-par character and just attach an iconic Bond villain to it and pass this sub-par character off on icon status alone and pure name recognition". Also, to soil the name of such an iconic villain by underwriting them, giving them an abysmally overdone motivation for vengeance, and rushing their entire character arc and relationship with Bond is disgraceful to the franchise. It's funny: Skyfall's villain was using a fake name, too. But Silva was revealed to be some nobody agent named Rodriguez we'd never heard of before. As a result, the writers had to make him distinct to stand on his own, and is therefore more memorable and impactful than the supposedly iconic villain in this film. However, this villain reveal ties together the entirety of the Bond timeline. Here's my theory: It's no doubt that Casino Royale is the first Bond novel, and therefore is his first assignment ever in both literary and films worlds. Quantum of Solace is a direct sequel, so that's second in the timeline. Then the Pierce Brosnan timeline happens, as they also feature Judi Dench as M. Then Skyfall, which drops a reference to GoldenEye as well as killing off Dench's M, cementing that this takes place after the Brosnan era. Then Spectre, which is a direct sequel to Skyfall and establishes one of Bond's most recurring and elusive nemeses and re-establishes M as a man, as he was in the older films. This is the film that leads to the original series of films, at leasts the pre-Brosnan ones, and therefore Spectre solidifies the Bond timeline. It may just be my theory, but I feel its' the best one I've heard, if you want to accept that there is any sense of continuity, which Bond films have never been too concerned with.
Saturday, October 31, 2015
Crimson Peak: del Toro's visual feast unfortunately lacks substance
Today, another review of a Halloween film out in October.
Crimson Peak:
Aspiring young author Edith is the daughter of a successful businessman in Buffalo, New York. She is courted and wooed by the mysterious baronet Sir Thomas Sharpe, and his sister Lucille, and she is married to him and taken to his England estate. However, Edith can also see ghosts, and they begin to warn her of a place called "Crimson Peak". Edith tries to forget these warnings, but as her new husband and sister-in-law grow increasingly distant and suspicious, and these nightly ghost appearances grow more frightening, she realizes there may be more to this estate and her new husband.
Guillermo del Toro, whatever one's opinion of him is, cannot be denied to have a keen visual eye. He is a master of lighting, impressive sets and costumes, and of cinematography. The look of this film evokes memories of Hammer Horror and Bram Stoker's Dracula from 1992. It even matches the idea from those films of having romance take priority over the horror aspects. However, in terms of quality, this film comes nowhere close to those. The primary color palate is green, red, and black, which is funny, considering there's a scene which talks about color blindness and its' lack of reds and greens, almost acknowledging that people with color blindness will not fully see the best part of this movie: the imagery.
The special effects are pretty good, even if the CG is overutilized. Some of the ghosts are menacing, others feel a little silly.
Mia Wasikowska is a decent lead, but feels a little wooden at times. Tom Hiddleston, while good to see him get away from the Loki character, starts strong but slowly his character becomes way too predictable. Jessica Chastain is laughably over-the-top evil, and there's, again, no mystery for her character despite the film supposedly being a mystery. She's obviously a villain from the start. Charlie Hunnam, Burn Gorman, and Jim Beaver are strong supporting characters, even if they are, also, pretty cliched. Doug Jones has some roles as ghosts in the film. It's cool to see del Toro still casting his buddies in small parts when the part fits them.
The plot starts pretty strong, and the first half was investing. But the middle tries to build slow tension, but ultimately feels like it just drags on, as it quickly becomes evident of what's going on. The climax packs in a completely cliched and predictable twist, but the final confrontation is entertaining, if not exactly scary. There's some brutal kills/attempted kills in the movie that just look like they hurt and make you cringe. Guillermo always seems to pull off those moments better than most directors, at least in the mainstream. One particular stab had one man in my theater screaming "Jesus Christ!" completely out loud in my small, and mostly empty screening.
Crimson Peak isn't exactly what I would call a scary, or even really suspenseful movie, bu it's a solid and mostly entertaining one with some chilling imagery and excellent period sets, costumes, and vibrant colors. There's some pretty violent scenes at the beginning and the end to keep things from getting too dull and to keep the stakes high, but ultimately, this isn't as good as del Toro can be. 6/10 stars.
Edit- November 11, 2015: the ghosts in the film were accomplished using mostly practical effects, not CGI as I had thought, though they look like it.
(Image: Wikipedia)
Crimson Peak:
Aspiring young author Edith is the daughter of a successful businessman in Buffalo, New York. She is courted and wooed by the mysterious baronet Sir Thomas Sharpe, and his sister Lucille, and she is married to him and taken to his England estate. However, Edith can also see ghosts, and they begin to warn her of a place called "Crimson Peak". Edith tries to forget these warnings, but as her new husband and sister-in-law grow increasingly distant and suspicious, and these nightly ghost appearances grow more frightening, she realizes there may be more to this estate and her new husband.
Guillermo del Toro, whatever one's opinion of him is, cannot be denied to have a keen visual eye. He is a master of lighting, impressive sets and costumes, and of cinematography. The look of this film evokes memories of Hammer Horror and Bram Stoker's Dracula from 1992. It even matches the idea from those films of having romance take priority over the horror aspects. However, in terms of quality, this film comes nowhere close to those. The primary color palate is green, red, and black, which is funny, considering there's a scene which talks about color blindness and its' lack of reds and greens, almost acknowledging that people with color blindness will not fully see the best part of this movie: the imagery.
The special effects are pretty good, even if the CG is overutilized. Some of the ghosts are menacing, others feel a little silly.
Mia Wasikowska is a decent lead, but feels a little wooden at times. Tom Hiddleston, while good to see him get away from the Loki character, starts strong but slowly his character becomes way too predictable. Jessica Chastain is laughably over-the-top evil, and there's, again, no mystery for her character despite the film supposedly being a mystery. She's obviously a villain from the start. Charlie Hunnam, Burn Gorman, and Jim Beaver are strong supporting characters, even if they are, also, pretty cliched. Doug Jones has some roles as ghosts in the film. It's cool to see del Toro still casting his buddies in small parts when the part fits them.
The plot starts pretty strong, and the first half was investing. But the middle tries to build slow tension, but ultimately feels like it just drags on, as it quickly becomes evident of what's going on. The climax packs in a completely cliched and predictable twist, but the final confrontation is entertaining, if not exactly scary. There's some brutal kills/attempted kills in the movie that just look like they hurt and make you cringe. Guillermo always seems to pull off those moments better than most directors, at least in the mainstream. One particular stab had one man in my theater screaming "Jesus Christ!" completely out loud in my small, and mostly empty screening.
Crimson Peak isn't exactly what I would call a scary, or even really suspenseful movie, bu it's a solid and mostly entertaining one with some chilling imagery and excellent period sets, costumes, and vibrant colors. There's some pretty violent scenes at the beginning and the end to keep things from getting too dull and to keep the stakes high, but ultimately, this isn't as good as del Toro can be. 6/10 stars.
Edit- November 11, 2015: the ghosts in the film were accomplished using mostly practical effects, not CGI as I had thought, though they look like it.
(Image: Wikipedia)
Goosebumps: R.L. Stine's children's series finally gets the big screen treatment
For Halloween, I figured I'd review two new horror movies I saw. Well, this isn't much of a horror film, but is a perfect fit for the Halloween season.
Goosebumps:
Shortly after moving into a small town in Delaware, teenaged Zach becomes infatuated with his next door neighbor Hannah. However, Hannah's mysterious and reclusive father doesn't want Zach around and warns him about leaving them alone. One night, Zach and his new friend Champ break into the home, thinking Hannah is in danger from her father. They discover her father is author R.L. Stine, who has every Goosebumps manuscript locked in his study. Upon opening one of the books, they discover opening them unleashes the monster from each book upon the world. Unfortunately, they unleash Slappy the Dummy, who begins opening and then destroying the manuscripts, preventing the monsters from being contained. With every monster Stine ever created wreaking havoc on the town, Zach, Hannah, Champ, and Stine must find a way to stop the monsters and recapture them before they destroy the town and move on to the rest of the world.
Now, despite being a fan of the books and TV show as a kid and therefore having a nostalgia for it, I find them to be just ok now. The books are leagues above the TV show, which is downright hilarious most of the time. Now, this movie didn't blow my expectations out of the water or anything. It was exactly as good as I expected it to be. Jack Black was decent as Stine and had some funny moments, and Amy Ryan and Jillian Bell were good supporting actresses. Black also voices Slappy. The main three kids, played by Dylan Minnette, Odeya Rush, and Ryan Lee, were decent leads and I think kids will enjoy them. R.L. Stine has a little cameo near the end as Mr. Black (get it? Because Jack Black plays him in the movie? Yeah, nothing too clever there.)
But about the kids, I think that's the best way to view this movie: remember that it really is made for kids. However, because of this it still can't be fully enjoyed by me. One of the worst parts was as nice as the huge monster fight at the climax was, it was way too tame. The Cabin in the Woods had a similar sequence, but because it was rated R, it could go all out with the violence and it was awesome. This movie keeps it PG and therefore the violence is comical and no one ever feels in genuine danger, and the monsters never get to do anything truly scary, and Stine's insistence about not having death in his books keeps the movie from having any balls. Also, there's a reveal in this film that provided the opportunity to really have kids face the reality of death in a mature fashion, and it almost did, and then they soil it with a forced happy ending. The ending "twist" also makes little sense at all. The scariest monsters are the zombies which are just slightly creepy, and Slappy's weird thing about him and Stine being one in the same made no sense to me and seemed like trying to force more of a relationship between the two into the movie. The best part of the movie is the credits sequence whose animation style mimics that of the Goosebumps book cover art. It was really a treat to see.
Goosebumps captures the spirit of the original books, and is leagues better than that 90's TV show (at least in terms of quality; funny wise, it doesn't hold a candle). The cast is good, the special effects are hit-or-miss (Slappy being a real dummy was cool, but some of the CG was so-so), and the story was a clever way to work in all the monsters from the books in one place. It's definitely the perfect Halloween movie for families to go see. 6/10 stars.
(Image: Wikipedia)
Goosebumps:
Shortly after moving into a small town in Delaware, teenaged Zach becomes infatuated with his next door neighbor Hannah. However, Hannah's mysterious and reclusive father doesn't want Zach around and warns him about leaving them alone. One night, Zach and his new friend Champ break into the home, thinking Hannah is in danger from her father. They discover her father is author R.L. Stine, who has every Goosebumps manuscript locked in his study. Upon opening one of the books, they discover opening them unleashes the monster from each book upon the world. Unfortunately, they unleash Slappy the Dummy, who begins opening and then destroying the manuscripts, preventing the monsters from being contained. With every monster Stine ever created wreaking havoc on the town, Zach, Hannah, Champ, and Stine must find a way to stop the monsters and recapture them before they destroy the town and move on to the rest of the world.
Now, despite being a fan of the books and TV show as a kid and therefore having a nostalgia for it, I find them to be just ok now. The books are leagues above the TV show, which is downright hilarious most of the time. Now, this movie didn't blow my expectations out of the water or anything. It was exactly as good as I expected it to be. Jack Black was decent as Stine and had some funny moments, and Amy Ryan and Jillian Bell were good supporting actresses. Black also voices Slappy. The main three kids, played by Dylan Minnette, Odeya Rush, and Ryan Lee, were decent leads and I think kids will enjoy them. R.L. Stine has a little cameo near the end as Mr. Black (get it? Because Jack Black plays him in the movie? Yeah, nothing too clever there.)
But about the kids, I think that's the best way to view this movie: remember that it really is made for kids. However, because of this it still can't be fully enjoyed by me. One of the worst parts was as nice as the huge monster fight at the climax was, it was way too tame. The Cabin in the Woods had a similar sequence, but because it was rated R, it could go all out with the violence and it was awesome. This movie keeps it PG and therefore the violence is comical and no one ever feels in genuine danger, and the monsters never get to do anything truly scary, and Stine's insistence about not having death in his books keeps the movie from having any balls. Also, there's a reveal in this film that provided the opportunity to really have kids face the reality of death in a mature fashion, and it almost did, and then they soil it with a forced happy ending. The ending "twist" also makes little sense at all. The scariest monsters are the zombies which are just slightly creepy, and Slappy's weird thing about him and Stine being one in the same made no sense to me and seemed like trying to force more of a relationship between the two into the movie. The best part of the movie is the credits sequence whose animation style mimics that of the Goosebumps book cover art. It was really a treat to see.
Goosebumps captures the spirit of the original books, and is leagues better than that 90's TV show (at least in terms of quality; funny wise, it doesn't hold a candle). The cast is good, the special effects are hit-or-miss (Slappy being a real dummy was cool, but some of the CG was so-so), and the story was a clever way to work in all the monsters from the books in one place. It's definitely the perfect Halloween movie for families to go see. 6/10 stars.
(Image: Wikipedia)
Sunday, October 25, 2015
Sicario: Denis Villeneuve delivers another taut and disturbing thriller
Today, a look at the latest film from the director of Incendies and Prisoners.
Sicario:
I didn't really have much of clue as to the plot of this film going in, so each new twist was a complete surprise. I won't give a plot summary, because I feel that's the best way to experience the movie.
Emily Blunt is really great as the lead heroine. She's a good mix of toughness, but also naivete and vulnerability that makes her relatable. Benicio Del Toro was fantastic, and Josh Brolin was equally effective. Daniel Kaluuya, Jon Bernthal, Jeffrey Donovan, Victor Garber, Maximiliano Hernández, Rauol Trujillo, and Julio Cedillo are recognizable faces who have smaller parts than you'd expect, but were terrific.
The plot, much like Drive, is essentially a simple plot done in an arthouse style. The entire atmosphere of the film is almost eerie and the movie has some fairly disturbing segments, as do all of Villeneuve's recent projects. The music by Jóhann Jóhannsson is moody and subtle, and never overwhelms the action or made me feel like I was being told how to feel via music cues, which is something many modern movies do as an easy emotional trick.
The cinematography by Roger Deakins is beautiful and flowing and clever. Deakins knows how to emphasize the power of a scene by using a huge wide-shot, or maybe focusing in on something smaller (one key scene never shows what actually happens, merely showing a drain on the floor of the room with the audience hearing some vague altercation, whereas others show the huge scope of the landscape the characters inhabit).
Taylor Sheridan's script is smart and is a new spin on a classic story arcs (revenge, betrayal). I was impressed even more so when I found out he's an actor, not a screenwriter.
But most impressive is the fact that Villeneuve is able to churn these projects out year after year. He's released a film every year for three years now: Prisoners in 2013, Enemy in 2014 (though technically a 2013 release in film fests), and now Sicario, and they've all been really great.
Sicario may not be as great as Villeneuve's other works, but it is an unvarnished look at the war on cartels, and an incredibly tense and suspenseful thriller, much like Prisoners. 7/10 stars (perhaps this will become an 8 on further watches).
(Image: Wikipedia)
Side Note:
R.I.P. Maureen O'Hara
Sicario:
I didn't really have much of clue as to the plot of this film going in, so each new twist was a complete surprise. I won't give a plot summary, because I feel that's the best way to experience the movie.
Emily Blunt is really great as the lead heroine. She's a good mix of toughness, but also naivete and vulnerability that makes her relatable. Benicio Del Toro was fantastic, and Josh Brolin was equally effective. Daniel Kaluuya, Jon Bernthal, Jeffrey Donovan, Victor Garber, Maximiliano Hernández, Rauol Trujillo, and Julio Cedillo are recognizable faces who have smaller parts than you'd expect, but were terrific.
The plot, much like Drive, is essentially a simple plot done in an arthouse style. The entire atmosphere of the film is almost eerie and the movie has some fairly disturbing segments, as do all of Villeneuve's recent projects. The music by Jóhann Jóhannsson is moody and subtle, and never overwhelms the action or made me feel like I was being told how to feel via music cues, which is something many modern movies do as an easy emotional trick.
The cinematography by Roger Deakins is beautiful and flowing and clever. Deakins knows how to emphasize the power of a scene by using a huge wide-shot, or maybe focusing in on something smaller (one key scene never shows what actually happens, merely showing a drain on the floor of the room with the audience hearing some vague altercation, whereas others show the huge scope of the landscape the characters inhabit).
Taylor Sheridan's script is smart and is a new spin on a classic story arcs (revenge, betrayal). I was impressed even more so when I found out he's an actor, not a screenwriter.
But most impressive is the fact that Villeneuve is able to churn these projects out year after year. He's released a film every year for three years now: Prisoners in 2013, Enemy in 2014 (though technically a 2013 release in film fests), and now Sicario, and they've all been really great.
Sicario may not be as great as Villeneuve's other works, but it is an unvarnished look at the war on cartels, and an incredibly tense and suspenseful thriller, much like Prisoners. 7/10 stars (perhaps this will become an 8 on further watches).
(Image: Wikipedia)Side Note:
R.I.P. Maureen O'Hara
Saturday, October 24, 2015
September Movies: The Visit and Black Mass
Today, I look at two movies I've seen recently.
The Visit:
Two young kids, a pretentious teenaged girl who likes making movies, and an idiotic boy who thinks he's a rapper, go for a week to visit their estranged grandparents and reconnect with them. However, spending more time with them, they realize something is very wrong with their grandparents...
M. Night Shyamalan has been the laughingstock of Hollywood for the past ten years. A pariah, who is despised by critics, and whose fans have even grown tired of his constant churning out of garbage. Suddenly, this film, which looked ridiculous and stupid, was getting good reviews. People were saying he was turning his career around at last. I went in knowing this movie would be bad. No matter what people said, I knew it, deep down. And it was gloriously bad. It's supposed to be this found footage horror comedy, but the parts that I could tell were supposed to be scary were hilarious, and the parts that were supposed to be funny just cringey and awkward.
The found footage angle doesn't work at all because it's essentially unnecessary except for budgetary reasons. There's still opening credits despite the "real" style, and the equipment being used by the main character is way too good for a teenage girl to have. The camerawork is so crisp and clear, it's like a professional camera. And the webcams being pretty much perfect, with no delay or bad audio is another pet peeve of mine as of late.
Olivia DeJonge and Ed Oxenbould are the two annoying main characters. The girl spouts movie equipment explanations and terms to the audience like we're stupid and talks in an incredibly condescending voice. The boy is just plain irritating. I do admire the two actors, who are Australian, putting on such convincing American accents, but the material they were given is just awkward. Peter McRobbie and Deanna Dunagan play their grandparents, who are some great scenery-chewing villains. They are without a doubt the best part of the whole movie. Kathryn Hahn appears as the kids' mother, who is fine, but for a found footage movie, it's distracting to see such a recognizable face.
The Visit is packed with jump-scares and unintentionally hilarious moments (grandpa's poop is used as a plot point and a scare), and is just painfully awkward at times in a way only Shyamalan can do. While I was thoroughly entertained, I feel it was still a failure as a horror-comedy, and should be seen as an all-around comedy. The only remotely suspenseful scene is the final confrontations with the grandparents, which are ruined by a poop scare and with a callback to football earlier in the movie that is absurdly forced. Overall, see it if you want a good laugh, or put it on at a Halloween party. This movie is a prime example that these day, Blumhouse will produce anything to make a quick buck. 5/10 stars.
Black Mass:
Telling the story of infamous Boston gangster James "Whitey" Bulger (a criminal whose exploits have inspired many other films), this movie follows his rise to power, family struggles, and the controversial alliance between Bulger and the FBI.
Johnny Depp has been in a bit of a career rut lately. Being typecast as the eccentric oddball for the past twenty-or-so years hasn't helped. In this movie, he gets to actually be an actor again by portraying a character who is different than is others, who has a semblance of depth to him. His portrayal of Bulger is the crowning achievement of the film. He's empathetic at times, but is mostly cold, intimidating, and other times, disgusting and skeevy. The makeup job on him was excellent, with some subtle touches like a bad tooth and pock marks, and more noticeable ones like his receding hairline and icy blue eyes. Johnny still looks a little too handsome to be the real life Whitey (who had big teeth and looked much older), but his performance makes up for it.
The rest of the cast do a fine job. It's too lengthy to list all here, but I will say Joel Edgerton was a good tragic hero character, who had moments of idiocy.
My main problem with the movie was its' often repetitive nature (if Bulger is alone with someone or with just him and his guys and someone else, it's a guarantee that he's going to either kill them or do something creepy, it's like a formula). There's also no suspense in certain scenes after awhile because you can predict how it's going to end based on the information above, plus obvious music cues, so it's not great a suspense thriller. Even as Bulger story, it's a lot more boring than most. The Departed has more leeway because it was a fictional story, so they could do more with the story to make it more investing, but here, it's all facts, so after awhile it gets quite dry. The first act definitely felt more intriguing and fast-paced than the second, which dragged its' feet too much.
Some of the camera angle choices were cool (in one death scene, they pan away to leave it kind of unclear what exactly was done, which was somewhat unique.
I know it's the title of the book this was based on, but I don't know exactly why they decided to call this film "Black Mass". I mean, it's an eye-catching title, but it really has nothing to do with the film's content.
Regardless, Black Mass is a decent gangster biopic, but nothing to write home about. It's essentially a straightforward telling, with little visual flair. I was disappointed, because director Scott Cooper has had a fairly good track record. Depp's performance may be enough to save this movie from pure mediocrity, but it's nothing compared to the other films based on Bulger's life. It's also a bummer when the dinner scene from the first trailer was done better in that trailer than in the actual film. 6/10 stars.
(Images: Wikipedia)
The Visit:
Two young kids, a pretentious teenaged girl who likes making movies, and an idiotic boy who thinks he's a rapper, go for a week to visit their estranged grandparents and reconnect with them. However, spending more time with them, they realize something is very wrong with their grandparents...
M. Night Shyamalan has been the laughingstock of Hollywood for the past ten years. A pariah, who is despised by critics, and whose fans have even grown tired of his constant churning out of garbage. Suddenly, this film, which looked ridiculous and stupid, was getting good reviews. People were saying he was turning his career around at last. I went in knowing this movie would be bad. No matter what people said, I knew it, deep down. And it was gloriously bad. It's supposed to be this found footage horror comedy, but the parts that I could tell were supposed to be scary were hilarious, and the parts that were supposed to be funny just cringey and awkward.
The found footage angle doesn't work at all because it's essentially unnecessary except for budgetary reasons. There's still opening credits despite the "real" style, and the equipment being used by the main character is way too good for a teenage girl to have. The camerawork is so crisp and clear, it's like a professional camera. And the webcams being pretty much perfect, with no delay or bad audio is another pet peeve of mine as of late.
Olivia DeJonge and Ed Oxenbould are the two annoying main characters. The girl spouts movie equipment explanations and terms to the audience like we're stupid and talks in an incredibly condescending voice. The boy is just plain irritating. I do admire the two actors, who are Australian, putting on such convincing American accents, but the material they were given is just awkward. Peter McRobbie and Deanna Dunagan play their grandparents, who are some great scenery-chewing villains. They are without a doubt the best part of the whole movie. Kathryn Hahn appears as the kids' mother, who is fine, but for a found footage movie, it's distracting to see such a recognizable face.
The Visit is packed with jump-scares and unintentionally hilarious moments (grandpa's poop is used as a plot point and a scare), and is just painfully awkward at times in a way only Shyamalan can do. While I was thoroughly entertained, I feel it was still a failure as a horror-comedy, and should be seen as an all-around comedy. The only remotely suspenseful scene is the final confrontations with the grandparents, which are ruined by a poop scare and with a callback to football earlier in the movie that is absurdly forced. Overall, see it if you want a good laugh, or put it on at a Halloween party. This movie is a prime example that these day, Blumhouse will produce anything to make a quick buck. 5/10 stars.
Black Mass:
Telling the story of infamous Boston gangster James "Whitey" Bulger (a criminal whose exploits have inspired many other films), this movie follows his rise to power, family struggles, and the controversial alliance between Bulger and the FBI.
Johnny Depp has been in a bit of a career rut lately. Being typecast as the eccentric oddball for the past twenty-or-so years hasn't helped. In this movie, he gets to actually be an actor again by portraying a character who is different than is others, who has a semblance of depth to him. His portrayal of Bulger is the crowning achievement of the film. He's empathetic at times, but is mostly cold, intimidating, and other times, disgusting and skeevy. The makeup job on him was excellent, with some subtle touches like a bad tooth and pock marks, and more noticeable ones like his receding hairline and icy blue eyes. Johnny still looks a little too handsome to be the real life Whitey (who had big teeth and looked much older), but his performance makes up for it.
The rest of the cast do a fine job. It's too lengthy to list all here, but I will say Joel Edgerton was a good tragic hero character, who had moments of idiocy.
My main problem with the movie was its' often repetitive nature (if Bulger is alone with someone or with just him and his guys and someone else, it's a guarantee that he's going to either kill them or do something creepy, it's like a formula). There's also no suspense in certain scenes after awhile because you can predict how it's going to end based on the information above, plus obvious music cues, so it's not great a suspense thriller. Even as Bulger story, it's a lot more boring than most. The Departed has more leeway because it was a fictional story, so they could do more with the story to make it more investing, but here, it's all facts, so after awhile it gets quite dry. The first act definitely felt more intriguing and fast-paced than the second, which dragged its' feet too much.
Some of the camera angle choices were cool (in one death scene, they pan away to leave it kind of unclear what exactly was done, which was somewhat unique.
I know it's the title of the book this was based on, but I don't know exactly why they decided to call this film "Black Mass". I mean, it's an eye-catching title, but it really has nothing to do with the film's content.
Regardless, Black Mass is a decent gangster biopic, but nothing to write home about. It's essentially a straightforward telling, with little visual flair. I was disappointed, because director Scott Cooper has had a fairly good track record. Depp's performance may be enough to save this movie from pure mediocrity, but it's nothing compared to the other films based on Bulger's life. It's also a bummer when the dinner scene from the first trailer was done better in that trailer than in the actual film. 6/10 stars.
(Images: Wikipedia)
Sinister 2: I don't even know what to say
This is a long-belated review because I honestly just had to gather my thoughts.
(Spoilers for "Sinister")
Sinister 2:
Some time after the conclusion of the first film, the young deputy from that film is traveling the United States, trying to destroy the demonic influence of Bughuul. However, after discovering a single mother and her two boys have moved into one of the houses where Bughuul killed a family, he realizes he must protect this family from the evil forces ready to consume them.
Now, I saw this film opening night, and, being a fan of the first film, was quite excited for it. I was growing more and more skeptical of the trailers as the date approached, but I went with my friend with an open mind. I was absolutely bedazzled by this film's ability to fuck up the mythology of a character and just general common sense in regards to character behavior. I won't go into too much detail, I am planning on making a more elaborate video review one day, because literally to explain the wrong that is this movie would require breaking down almost every single scene.
James Ransone is a criminally underrated actor, so it was sad to see him trying so hard in this movie, and being dragged down in this mess. Shannyn Sossamon did a fair job with the material, but her and Ransone's romance was highly predictable if you've seen any movie ever. The two boys in the film are pretty bad. One is bland, the other is tongue-in-cheek pure evil, which is odd considering how normal he was at the start of the movie. Tate Ellington and John Beasley have small roles, and Lea Coco has one of the most gloriously over-the-top douchebag dad roles in cinema history. I mean, Jesus Christ, the lack of nuance is kind of an art in itself with this guy. Lucas Jade Zumann is amusing as Milo, one of the evil ghost kids in the movie. He's like a mini-Bond villain, he's so hammy.
The scares in the movie are all cheap, pandering jump scares, and there's no real build-up or genuine sense of dread like there was in the first film. This movie's soundtrack is even subpar in comparison, using blander tracks or just recycling music from the previous film.
The biggest problem with the movie is the Super 8 films. The concept of the kids killing their own families was already a slight stretch, but the amount of reality bending in this film is absurd. I know Scott Derrickson and C. Robert Cargill have defended jump scares before, but their overuse in the film borderlines on self-parody.
Speaking of overuse, Bughuul himself is way overexposed in this one, having no longer a sense of terror surrounding his sporadic appearances. Here, he's everywhere constantly. And the lighting they chose really emphasizes the ridiculousness of his attire, whereas the original kept him shrouded in shadow.
The deaths are also far too elaborate this time around. Much like a slasher sequel, it suffers from focusing too much on having cool-looking kills, without keeping in mind realism, or actually being scary.
There was no mystique this time around because we, as an audience, already know Bughuul exists and that the kids are killing their families. There's no longer a sense of a mystery killer. I can't even believe this was written by the same people.
This is not, in any sense, a scary movie. However, if you enjoy some unintentionally hilarious lines and ridiculously overblown death scenes, as well as some light melodrama, this is a film for you. As bad as it is, and as much as it soils the name of the original film (a film I really enjoyed), it is an extremely entertaining movie, a movie me and my friend have quoted and referenced since it came out. Sinister 2 is a disaster of a horror film, but still can be appreciated for the silly dark comedy it turned out to be. 5/10 stars.
(Image: Wikipedia)
(Spoilers for "Sinister")
Sinister 2:
Some time after the conclusion of the first film, the young deputy from that film is traveling the United States, trying to destroy the demonic influence of Bughuul. However, after discovering a single mother and her two boys have moved into one of the houses where Bughuul killed a family, he realizes he must protect this family from the evil forces ready to consume them.
Now, I saw this film opening night, and, being a fan of the first film, was quite excited for it. I was growing more and more skeptical of the trailers as the date approached, but I went with my friend with an open mind. I was absolutely bedazzled by this film's ability to fuck up the mythology of a character and just general common sense in regards to character behavior. I won't go into too much detail, I am planning on making a more elaborate video review one day, because literally to explain the wrong that is this movie would require breaking down almost every single scene.
James Ransone is a criminally underrated actor, so it was sad to see him trying so hard in this movie, and being dragged down in this mess. Shannyn Sossamon did a fair job with the material, but her and Ransone's romance was highly predictable if you've seen any movie ever. The two boys in the film are pretty bad. One is bland, the other is tongue-in-cheek pure evil, which is odd considering how normal he was at the start of the movie. Tate Ellington and John Beasley have small roles, and Lea Coco has one of the most gloriously over-the-top douchebag dad roles in cinema history. I mean, Jesus Christ, the lack of nuance is kind of an art in itself with this guy. Lucas Jade Zumann is amusing as Milo, one of the evil ghost kids in the movie. He's like a mini-Bond villain, he's so hammy.
The scares in the movie are all cheap, pandering jump scares, and there's no real build-up or genuine sense of dread like there was in the first film. This movie's soundtrack is even subpar in comparison, using blander tracks or just recycling music from the previous film.
The biggest problem with the movie is the Super 8 films. The concept of the kids killing their own families was already a slight stretch, but the amount of reality bending in this film is absurd. I know Scott Derrickson and C. Robert Cargill have defended jump scares before, but their overuse in the film borderlines on self-parody.
Speaking of overuse, Bughuul himself is way overexposed in this one, having no longer a sense of terror surrounding his sporadic appearances. Here, he's everywhere constantly. And the lighting they chose really emphasizes the ridiculousness of his attire, whereas the original kept him shrouded in shadow.
The deaths are also far too elaborate this time around. Much like a slasher sequel, it suffers from focusing too much on having cool-looking kills, without keeping in mind realism, or actually being scary.
There was no mystique this time around because we, as an audience, already know Bughuul exists and that the kids are killing their families. There's no longer a sense of a mystery killer. I can't even believe this was written by the same people.
This is not, in any sense, a scary movie. However, if you enjoy some unintentionally hilarious lines and ridiculously overblown death scenes, as well as some light melodrama, this is a film for you. As bad as it is, and as much as it soils the name of the original film (a film I really enjoyed), it is an extremely entertaining movie, a movie me and my friend have quoted and referenced since it came out. Sinister 2 is a disaster of a horror film, but still can be appreciated for the silly dark comedy it turned out to be. 5/10 stars.
(Image: Wikipedia)
Friday, October 23, 2015
Mission: Impossible- Rogue Nation: A review so late this movie will probably be on Blu-ray soon
Sorry for the extreme delay on reviews, I'll be pumping out more in the next few days and probably do another "Top 10 Horror" list for Halloween.
Mission: Impossible, Rogue Nation:
Ethan Hunt is on the run from the CIA, after the Impossible Mission Force is shut down completely. Not only that, but he is trying to single-handedly unravel the conspiracy surrounding The Syndicate, a "rogue nation" of sorts that is essentially an evil IMF dedicated to advancing its' own goals and goals of its' investors through strategic terror attacks made to look like they are connected to other groups. Hunt must team with mysterious newcomer Ilsa and his old teammates Benji, Luther, and William Brandt to clear their names, avoid the CIA, and prove to the world that The Syndicate is real.
Now, this was originally scheduled for a December release, like the previous installment Ghost Protocol, but was pushed forward to avoid box office conflict with Star Wars VII (smart move). This is a film that feels like a rushed release. Released with little publicity for a summer blockbuster in late July, it just felt forced and unnatural. This is also obviously similar to the upcoming Bond film Spectre, in that both focus in on the heroes fighting an evil organization that is a dark reflection of their own agency, and both evil organizations in the films are iconic enemies of their respective franchises.
Tom Cruise is still a very entertaining and formidable action star and is able to put his absolute all into every scene and stunt, which is very admirable; it's amazing how few of his films use stunt doubles. Ving Rhames, Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg, Alec Baldwin, and Rebecca Ferguson make up a strong supporting cast with Rhames and Pegg being the best of them, with Rhames having a smaller but still pivotal role. Ferguson makes a decent newcomer to the cast, but there's something so cliched about her whole femme fatale mystique that detracts a bit from the performance.
Sean Harris plays the film's main mystery villain, whose identity I won't spoil. He is the leader of The Syndicate, and is fairly slimy and creepy, almost reminiscent of Toht from Raiders of the Lost Ark or Le Chiffre from Casino Royale. However, he is nowhere near as strong or memorable as a Bond villain, but is an improvement over the previous installment's slightly underwhelming villain.
However, this is the only thing that Rogue Nation improves on. Despite some impressive set-pieces such as the opening plane sequence (which was spoiled in the trailer and felt rushed in the film, as well as feeling like too much too early), Ethan's escape early on, the fight with an assassin in a theater, the motorcycle chase, and the final confrontation with the villain, the action feels lackluster when compared to the unpredictably excellent sequences in Ghost Protocol. This film just doesn't feel as grand or investing as Ghost Protocol, and feels closer to a run-of-the-mill Hollywood sequel, unlike the last two films.
Christopher McQuarrie has done some good work in the past, especially with Bryan Singer, but surprisingly he doesn't feel as prepared for this as Brad Bird did last time, despite Bird never directing an action film, or even a live-action feature.
Mission: Impossible- Rogue Nation is an entertaining and worthwhile spy thriller, though it's not as enthralling or slick as the last two in the franchise, and probably won't be as intriguing or artful as Spectre. 6.5/10 stars.
(Image: Wikipedia)
Mission: Impossible, Rogue Nation:
Ethan Hunt is on the run from the CIA, after the Impossible Mission Force is shut down completely. Not only that, but he is trying to single-handedly unravel the conspiracy surrounding The Syndicate, a "rogue nation" of sorts that is essentially an evil IMF dedicated to advancing its' own goals and goals of its' investors through strategic terror attacks made to look like they are connected to other groups. Hunt must team with mysterious newcomer Ilsa and his old teammates Benji, Luther, and William Brandt to clear their names, avoid the CIA, and prove to the world that The Syndicate is real.
Now, this was originally scheduled for a December release, like the previous installment Ghost Protocol, but was pushed forward to avoid box office conflict with Star Wars VII (smart move). This is a film that feels like a rushed release. Released with little publicity for a summer blockbuster in late July, it just felt forced and unnatural. This is also obviously similar to the upcoming Bond film Spectre, in that both focus in on the heroes fighting an evil organization that is a dark reflection of their own agency, and both evil organizations in the films are iconic enemies of their respective franchises.
Tom Cruise is still a very entertaining and formidable action star and is able to put his absolute all into every scene and stunt, which is very admirable; it's amazing how few of his films use stunt doubles. Ving Rhames, Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg, Alec Baldwin, and Rebecca Ferguson make up a strong supporting cast with Rhames and Pegg being the best of them, with Rhames having a smaller but still pivotal role. Ferguson makes a decent newcomer to the cast, but there's something so cliched about her whole femme fatale mystique that detracts a bit from the performance.
Sean Harris plays the film's main mystery villain, whose identity I won't spoil. He is the leader of The Syndicate, and is fairly slimy and creepy, almost reminiscent of Toht from Raiders of the Lost Ark or Le Chiffre from Casino Royale. However, he is nowhere near as strong or memorable as a Bond villain, but is an improvement over the previous installment's slightly underwhelming villain.
However, this is the only thing that Rogue Nation improves on. Despite some impressive set-pieces such as the opening plane sequence (which was spoiled in the trailer and felt rushed in the film, as well as feeling like too much too early), Ethan's escape early on, the fight with an assassin in a theater, the motorcycle chase, and the final confrontation with the villain, the action feels lackluster when compared to the unpredictably excellent sequences in Ghost Protocol. This film just doesn't feel as grand or investing as Ghost Protocol, and feels closer to a run-of-the-mill Hollywood sequel, unlike the last two films.
Christopher McQuarrie has done some good work in the past, especially with Bryan Singer, but surprisingly he doesn't feel as prepared for this as Brad Bird did last time, despite Bird never directing an action film, or even a live-action feature.
Mission: Impossible- Rogue Nation is an entertaining and worthwhile spy thriller, though it's not as enthralling or slick as the last two in the franchise, and probably won't be as intriguing or artful as Spectre. 6.5/10 stars.
(Image: Wikipedia)
Monday, October 5, 2015
Fantastic Four: I think this is a great example of how superhero films are hitting another dark period
Today, I look at the latest failed attempt at making an adaptation of Jack Kirby and Stan Lee's classic superhero team. (Sorry this review is almost two months late.)
Fantastic Four (or Fant4stic):
Reed Richards, a young genius who has recently discovered the secret to interdimensional travel, is enlisted as a help on a research project at the Baxter Institute in New York by Dr. Franklin Storm and his children Sue and Johnny, and is also assisted by his childhood best friend Ben Grimm and Sue;s former flame and genius computer scientist Victor Von Doom. When a trip through their portal goes horribly wrong, the five of them end up with strange and horrible superpowers, and the government begins training them to be biological weapons.
I actually didn't get the hate behind this movie. I thought it was a decent, surprisingly dark and moody superhero film, with the occasionally bad-looking effect. I actually enjoyed it a fair amount -- until the last twenty minutes, when I realized how rushed the finale was, and cliche, and totally uninspired and worthless and dull. And it made me resent the rest of the movie.
Before I heard the bad news that this film bit the big one, I had no interest in seeing it. After hearing the stories about young director Josh Trank's completely unprofessional behavior on set, and his getting kicked off the new Star Wars spin-off as a result of this film, and hearing about the bastardization of the main villain, I couldn't wait to see this epic bomb.
But when I saw the film, I didn't mind it for the most part. The main cast (Kate Mara, Jamie Bell, Miles Teller, Michael B. Jordan, Reg E. Cathey, the latter two being Wire alumni) were fine, and although Toby Kebbell was a little over-the-top (and came off like a more serious Gilfoyle from Silicon Valley) he was a decent interpretation of Dr. Doom. Speaking of which, let's get the positive out of the way: from what I heard, the original premise for the film was supposed to be a David Cronenberg-esque body horror film that would show the real ramifications of the type of powers that the Four have. There are still elements of that film in here, especially in the scenes immediately following the cosmic accident and a scene with Dr. Doom at the end blowing up people's heads with telepathy (which I found shockingly violent and awesome). Certain updates of the story (interdimensional travel instead of space storm. Johnny being black) stayed in the script, others didn't. In the original script, Dr. Doom's name would be changed to Victor Domashev, something a little more realistic to fit he tone of the film. Fanboys didn't like this, and bitched so much the producers made Trank change it back to Von Doom. I wouldn't have minded the change, and felt it would have been appropriate. The Thing's CG work looks good and fells like a good use of digital effects.
Now for the problems: the climax has no fucking build-up... at all. They build up this plot about the government trying to make the heroes into weapons, and then they just drop that plot, make the heroes reconcile their differences, and introduce a brand new villain in the last fifteen minutes! The new Doom was pretty cool I thought... until he just opens up a blue laser portal for NO reason and is defeated like a bitch in ten minutes. Not to mention the whole second half moves way too fast compared to the pace of the first half, all the character motivations feel like they move too quick and there's no build-up. Say what you will about the Tim Story films, but at least they BUILT to something. In my opinion, this film could have been vastly improved by the plot being stretched an extra forty minutes, building up the team's bonding, and played up the slimy government agent as the villain, eventually reintroducing Doom in the finale and having him take over Latveria as a stinger ending.
Fantastic Four is a shameless cash-grab, and a poor example of when a director has bold ambitions and a big budget, but not enough experience to handle it. The ending soils a pretty decent superhero film with potential, and if the sequel proves to be anything like this, I see no future for adaptations of this superhero team. It's like the brand-name is cursed. 4/10 stars.
(Image: Wikipedia)
Fantastic Four (or Fant4stic):
Reed Richards, a young genius who has recently discovered the secret to interdimensional travel, is enlisted as a help on a research project at the Baxter Institute in New York by Dr. Franklin Storm and his children Sue and Johnny, and is also assisted by his childhood best friend Ben Grimm and Sue;s former flame and genius computer scientist Victor Von Doom. When a trip through their portal goes horribly wrong, the five of them end up with strange and horrible superpowers, and the government begins training them to be biological weapons.
I actually didn't get the hate behind this movie. I thought it was a decent, surprisingly dark and moody superhero film, with the occasionally bad-looking effect. I actually enjoyed it a fair amount -- until the last twenty minutes, when I realized how rushed the finale was, and cliche, and totally uninspired and worthless and dull. And it made me resent the rest of the movie.
Before I heard the bad news that this film bit the big one, I had no interest in seeing it. After hearing the stories about young director Josh Trank's completely unprofessional behavior on set, and his getting kicked off the new Star Wars spin-off as a result of this film, and hearing about the bastardization of the main villain, I couldn't wait to see this epic bomb.
But when I saw the film, I didn't mind it for the most part. The main cast (Kate Mara, Jamie Bell, Miles Teller, Michael B. Jordan, Reg E. Cathey, the latter two being Wire alumni) were fine, and although Toby Kebbell was a little over-the-top (and came off like a more serious Gilfoyle from Silicon Valley) he was a decent interpretation of Dr. Doom. Speaking of which, let's get the positive out of the way: from what I heard, the original premise for the film was supposed to be a David Cronenberg-esque body horror film that would show the real ramifications of the type of powers that the Four have. There are still elements of that film in here, especially in the scenes immediately following the cosmic accident and a scene with Dr. Doom at the end blowing up people's heads with telepathy (which I found shockingly violent and awesome). Certain updates of the story (interdimensional travel instead of space storm. Johnny being black) stayed in the script, others didn't. In the original script, Dr. Doom's name would be changed to Victor Domashev, something a little more realistic to fit he tone of the film. Fanboys didn't like this, and bitched so much the producers made Trank change it back to Von Doom. I wouldn't have minded the change, and felt it would have been appropriate. The Thing's CG work looks good and fells like a good use of digital effects.
Now for the problems: the climax has no fucking build-up... at all. They build up this plot about the government trying to make the heroes into weapons, and then they just drop that plot, make the heroes reconcile their differences, and introduce a brand new villain in the last fifteen minutes! The new Doom was pretty cool I thought... until he just opens up a blue laser portal for NO reason and is defeated like a bitch in ten minutes. Not to mention the whole second half moves way too fast compared to the pace of the first half, all the character motivations feel like they move too quick and there's no build-up. Say what you will about the Tim Story films, but at least they BUILT to something. In my opinion, this film could have been vastly improved by the plot being stretched an extra forty minutes, building up the team's bonding, and played up the slimy government agent as the villain, eventually reintroducing Doom in the finale and having him take over Latveria as a stinger ending.
Fantastic Four is a shameless cash-grab, and a poor example of when a director has bold ambitions and a big budget, but not enough experience to handle it. The ending soils a pretty decent superhero film with potential, and if the sequel proves to be anything like this, I see no future for adaptations of this superhero team. It's like the brand-name is cursed. 4/10 stars.
(Image: Wikipedia)
Sunday, September 27, 2015
Top 25 Horror Films of the 1970s: Arguably the greatest decade for revolutionary horror cinema
Because October is right around the corner, I figured I'd begin counting down my top horror films per decade once more. I wanted to get more done last year but ran out of time. This year, I'm hoping to reach at least the 2000's.
Criteria:
Must be a film produced between 1970 and 1979
Must be a horror film, thriller, or have horror-related subject matter
As always, a little backstory...
The Seventies were a decade, much like the Sixties, of revolution. After the Manson murders in Southern California, the American public was exposed to violence never thought of before. The ensuing media circus surrounding the trial of Charles Manson and his associates prompted a new fixation on cults and serial killers. Soon, the macabre and sick exploits of Jeffrey Dahmer, Son of Sam, Ted Bundy, and John Wayne Gacy became subjects of national interest and analysis. The Vietnam War drew to a close, with many veterans returning home mentally and physically destroyed by the countless horrors they had witnessed, which only strengthened the anti-war movement which grew ever-strong in the country. The deaths of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcolm X the previous decade had made those men martyrs in the eyes of their followers, and had spurned an even more radical counter-culture ideology that was adopted by young college and high school students.
These events had the opposite effect on new horror cinema as past events did on old horror. When the Great Depression and World War II hit, people sought movies, especially the fantastical Golden Age horror films, to escape from their real-world troubles. However, now, in this new age of cinema, people went to the cinemas to be faced with troubling questions about the state of the world. New, young filmmakers such as Martin Scorsese, William Friedkin, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and Francis Ford Coppola were rising in the film-making world, breaking the rules of Hollywood and producing some critically acclaimed and high-grossing work such as The Godfather, American Graffiti, The French Connection, Duel, Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Jaws, and Star Wars, a lot of which had more violence and moral ambiguity than was allowed in most major studio fare. Jaws and Star Wars became the first films that were referred to commonly as "blockbusters," setting a new trend in Hollywood.
On the seedier end of the independent movie scene were young, fledgling directors like Brian De Palma, George A. Romero, Wes Craven, John Carpenter, Dan O'Bannon, Tobe Hooper, and Sean S. Cunningham, These men were lovers of film who were raised (at least mostly) on a diet of Universal monster movies, Hammer horror, Hitchcock, and 50's sci-fi schlock. Taking what they loved about the classic horror genre while adding the brutality and violence so present in Seventies culture made for a potent mix that produced some of the best films ever made. By the end of the decade, Carpenter's Halloween reinvented the entire horror genre and spurned forth (arguably) its' most popular sub-genre: the slasher film...
The List:
25. Blacula (1972): This blaxploitation horror film may sound funny on paper, but is actually fairly effective. William Marshall is charismatic in the titular role, and while the plot isn't all that deep, it's pretty good for a cheaply made exploitation movie.
24. Magic (1978): This psychological horror film further popularized the killer doll genre of movies. While it borrows much from previous "killer ventriloquist dummy" media like episodes of The Twilight Zone and the film Dead of Night, it infused a mystery element and was made by a stellar production team: director Richard Attenborough, and a cast featuring Anthony Hopkins, Ann-Margaret, Burgess Meredith, and Ed Lauter elevate this film above the general cheesy killer pupper fare.
23. Valerie and Her Week of Wonders (1970): This surreal and bizarre Czech film is a twisted fairy tale chronicling a young girl named Valerie's encounters with a thief, a masked monster, and a priest, among other things. A dreamlike film that's almost reminiscent of David Lynch, it packs in some weird and unsettling imagery that sticks with the viewer, and is a great example of an exercise in surrealist horror.
22. Deathdream (1974): Bob Clark may be best known today for directing A Christmas Story and Murder By Decree, but in the 70's, he was an independent horror film director. And a good one, at that. His films were ahead of their time, and dark and brutally violent, and, best of all, genuinely unnerving. This film was a commentary on the Vietnam War's effects on the folks back home, as well as a quasi-adaptation of the W.W. Jacobs short story "The Monkey's Paw".
21. The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971): This Vincent Price vehicle came late in his career, but was successful enough to spawn a sequel. A classic revenge story set around the Ten Plagues of Egypt, the film sees Price once again play a disfigured genius driven mad and fueled by vengeful rage. The kills in the film push the boundaries of believability, but are unique and memorable. A campy and often neglected entry in the horror genre, it's one of Price's better films.
20. Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979): Werner Herzog's artful remake of the 1922 classic silent film stars Klaus Kinski in the titular role. Shot in both English and German, this film continues in the trend of Herzog and Kinski's partnership, it is a vivid and beautiful film to look at, and Kinski is perfect as Nosferatu. Despite the allegations of animal cruelty and abuse on the set, which Herzog apparently neglected, the movie is still an immensely enjoyable revamp (no pun intended), and one of the few remakes that is on par with its' source material.
19. Phantasm (1979): This bizarre and eerie supernatural thriller was a locally financed indie film that wound up spawning a string of sequels, and cementing Angus Scrimm's Tall Man character as an icon of the horror genre. With some nightmarish visuals, unconventional structure, and an imposing boogeyman figure as the villain, Phantasm is one of the more underrated 70's horror films.
18. The Brood (1979): David Cronenberg's body horror film serves as a metaphor for feminine empowerment gone awry and as an interesting look at messy divorces, and asks an interesting question: if we could actually manifest those negative emotions we feel towards others, could it wind up controlling us? The shocking and cringe-inducing imagery and nasty special effects paired with those messages part of what Cronenberg does so well: make us think, and make us squirm, often at the same time.
17. Alice, Sweet Alice (1976): Featuring Brooke Shields in her film debut, this slasher film is a cut above the rest. This mostly owes to the exceptionally creepy and haunting mask worn by the killer, a translucent mask highlighted with drag queen-esque makeup. The film was released three times under three different titles: as Communion at the Chicago International Film Festival in 1976, theatrically in 1978 under this title, and a third time in 1981 as Holy Terror to capitalize on Brooke Shields' growing popularity. While borrowing from many previous films, most notably the raincoat motif from Don't Look Now, this movie stands on its' own as one of the more genuinely scary of the slasher films, and one that predates Halloween. And speaking of Don't Look Now...
16. Don't Look Now (1973): A startling thriller about psychic powers, serial killers, and ghost girls, the film, much like many 70's horror films, took elements that made old horror films so great, updated them for modern adult audiences, and were being made by some bigger names in the film industry. This one stars Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie, two major stars, and was directed by the acclaimed Nicolas Roeg. This movie has some visually striking images, and one of the best (and most unexpected) twist endings ever.
15. Black Christmas (1974): Bob Clark shows up again on this list with his dark precursor to A Christmas Story. A brutal and dreamlike film with a mysterious killer, it set a trend for slasher films, and reportedly this was one of the films that inspired John Carpenter's Halloween, as the planned sequel for this film would have taken place on that holiday. The camera angles, opening shot, and violent kills set the stage for Halloween, though this film is even darker, bloodier and more vulgar than that film was. The film has future stars like Olivia Hussey, Andrea Martin, Margot Kidder, and John Saxon, and 2001 star Keir Dullea. The unsolved identity of the killer makes the film unsettling as it leaves so many doors open, and the killer's weird, gender-neutral voice is chilling and sticks in your head.
14. The Hills Have Eyes (1977): Wes Craven's second major horror movie was stars future E.T. star Dee Wallace and is a brutal and unapologetic film that chronicles one family's struggle for survival against an inbred family of feral cannibals. Michael Berryman (the man on the poster) was shot to B-movie stardom for his unique physical appearance and imposing performance. The film was successful enough to spawn a sequel and a remake and its' sequel. The movie also further popularized the 70's sub-genre of middle-America family vs. group of deranged killers, and also popularized the feral cannibal sub-genre.
13. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978): This remake of the 1950's classic by Philip Kaufman stars Donald Sutherland, Leonard Nimoy, Brooke Adams,Veronica Cartwright, and Jeff Goldblum. Managing to be just as memorable as the original in its' own way, with surreal, 70's acid-trip imagery and a harrowing twist ending, this movie also has a much more graphic and nasty pod people transformation process and the logic behind the transformations is actually an improvement over the original, which had a plot hole in that area. While not as iconic or important as the original, this reimagining is definitely one of the best remakes of all time.
12. The Wicker Man (1973): This dark occult mystery film pits a devoutly Christian police detective against an underground pagan cult. Christopher Lee's performance as the villain Lord Summersisle is one of his more underrated, and the cast, featuring Edward Woodward, Ingrid Pitt, Diane Cilento, and Britt Ekland. It has some great suspense, an interesting soundtrack, a compelling mystery that slowly spirals into a much larger conspiracy, and has a fantastic and horrific ending reveal. The hilarious 2006 remake starring Nicolas Cage is only entertaining on an ironic level, and can't hold a candle to the original.
11. Eraserhead (1977): David Lynch's first feature is one of the most nightmarish and stomach-churning movies ever made. The bizarre and uniquely nasty imagery, industrial location and soundtrack, dreamlike narrative, and creepy and odd characters set the standard for Lynch films: symbolic and weird movies that creep under your skin.
10. The Last House on the Left (1972): A brutal and sickening revenge thriller, produced by Sean S. Cunningham and directed by Wes Craven in his debut film, the movie serves a warning about the consequences of revenge. Reflecting the horrific side of the Love Generations showcased by the Manson murders, this grindhouse exploitation film features some of the most brutal violence seen at the time. The violence was enough to get it banned in several countries and cause a lot of controversy upon release. But it is this violence that assaults the viewer and makes them ponder the consequences of it in the real world. Many people mistake this movie for glorifying or sexualizing violence, when it is doing the exact opposite, it is a warning against violence, unlike the 2009 remake, which ends on a slightly happy note and glorifies the revenge sequence at the end of the film as justified.
9. Suspiria (1977): Dario Argento's stylish Italian giallo movie is one of the most beautiful and colorful horror films to look at. Part of his "Three Mothers" trilogy, this movie is famous for its' beautiful cinematography, vivid color palates, and almost fairy tale-esque plot. The score by prog-rock band Goblin is excellent, and set a trend for prog-rock and synth bands composing scores for horror and sci-fi films during the 1980's.
8. Carrie (1976): Based on Stephen King's bestselling 1974 novel, Brian DePalma's masterful adaptation darkened the ending and provided some great cinematography and suspenseful sequences. The climactic dance scene is taut and has the viewer on the edge of their seat, until the moment when all hell breaks loose and Carrie has her brutal revenge on all those who wronged her (and some who didn't). Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie both had Oscar-nominated performances, Spacek for her role as the timid and emotionally troubled teenage girl, and Laurie as her psychotic and domineering Christian mother. Nancy Allen and John Travolta also appear in the film, another case of future A-listers appearing in smaller projects. The relationship between Carrie and her mother is tragic, symbiotic, and cringe-worthy to watch, and is the dramatic backbone of the movie. The first Stephen King movie adaptation was also based on his first novel, and kick-started a string of over 100 adaptations of his various works.
7. The Omen (1976): Richard Donner and David Seltzer's Satanic thriller has a moody and atmospheric score, great lead performances by Gregory Peck, Lee Remick, and David Warner, and one of the best "creepy kid" performances by Harvey Spencer Stephens. The mystery surrounding the boy continues to unravel in unexpected ways, and the film masterfully builds to a crescendo where our leads desperately try to stop the horrible force that is Damien. However, unlike The Exorcist, The Omen leaves an a much more ominous and foreboding ending, with no comforting happy ending to be had.
6. Alien (1979): Dan O'Bannon's script and Ridley Scott's eye of visuals combine to create the greatest of the sci-fi horror movies. H.R. Giger's phallic and iconic creature design and disturbing art style contribute to much of the film's look. The lead performances by Sigourney Weaver, John Hurt, Tom Skerritt, Veronica Cartwright, and Henry Dean Stanton are phenomenal, particularly Weaver's turn as Ellen Ripley, one of the most bad-ass female leads of all time. The effective use of long tracking shots, false scares, and long periods of suspense and build-up make Alien just as much a Gothic horror/slasher film as it is a sci-fi thriller. And although it borrows a lot from the 1950's film It! The Terror from Beyond Space, it also contributed enough original visuals and scares (chest-burster scene) to be its' own film.
5. Dawn of the Dead (1978): George A. Romero's follow-up to his 1968 Night of the Living Dead is is color and cranks up the gore and returns to his social commentary. Instead of being about race relations, it's about mall culture turning Americans into zombies. The leads, including Ken Foree, are great and the set-pieces, especially the final sequence where the survivors must face off against both a biker gang and a horde of incoming zombies is spectacular. It surpasses the original in every conceivable way, and although it has a happier ending (the original cut of the film had a much more somber end), it is a darker film than its' predecessor. It also has one of the best lines/taglines in horror history: "When there's no more room in Hell, the dead walk the Earth."
4. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974): Made on a shoe-string budget with a cast of unknowns (mostly Texas natives), Tobe Hooper's grimy and nasty grindhouse film introduced the world to slasher icon Leatherface and his family of deranged cannibals. A film that remains discomforting today due to its' improvised, documentary-style feel and savage violence (most of which is off-screen and implied, leaving it to the viewers' imagination), it also inspired many modern filmmakers, including Peter Jackson, and was a forerunner of the slasher genre. Gunnar Hansen remains the best Leatherface, mostly due to his convincing portrayal that doesn't make him totally sympathetic like the remake tries, but also reminds us that he, too, is human and has good traits (cares for his family's well-being), but also constantly reminds us that he is a force to be reckoned with. His mask seems more authentic than the remake's as well, further creating this weird blurring-the-lines effect where one can't be sure what they are seeing is staged or not. The other actors, including Ed Neal, are so good at portraying demented killers that one could almost be convinced Hooper just cast real crazy people in his movie.
3. Jaws (1975): Steven Spielberg's innovative blockbuster film faced numerous production problems, resulting in a malfunctioning mechanical shark on set. Due to this, the shark was used more sparingly than Spielberg had hoped, but this led to the team mostly using POV shots of the shark, and because the shark only appeared on screen briefly once in a while, it built up incredible suspense to when it would next appear. With John Williams' iconic and slow-building main theme scoring the film and some great performances by Roy Scheider, Richard Dreyfuss, and Robert Shaw (especially Shaw, who plays the memorable Quint, who gives a chilling monologue about shark eyes), this adventure-thriller based on Peter Benchley's novel remains one of the top 20 films ever made.
2. The Exorcist (1973): William Friedkin's adaptation of William Peter Blatty's demonic possession horror novel (which in turn was based of a reportedly true story) caused mass waves of controversy upon release. Christian groups claimed it was possessed by Lucifer himself, while most of the general public ran screaming from the theater upon seeing it. The special effects by Dick Smith were revolutionary and still look convincing today. The vulgar language, disgusting imagery, and frightening voice of Mercedes McCambridge as possessed Reagan are what make the film so memorable and terrifying to this day. It was the first horror film nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars, and it is led by a stellar cast, featuring Ellen Burstyn, Linda Blair (doing a great performance for a child actress), Jason Miller, Lee J. Cobb, and Max Von Sydow (playing a character decades older than he actually was). The main theme from the album Tubular Bells is up there with John Carpenter's Halloween score as one of the eeriest and most ear-wormy movie themes of all time.
1. Halloween (1978): John Carpenter's classic slasher film introduced the world to the first of the modern boogeymen (Michael Myers) and really defined the tropes of the slasher genre. It was followed by a slew of copycat films, and shot Jamie Lee Curtis (daughter of Janet Leigh) to stardom and set her "scream queen" status. The musical score, pacing, POV and tracking shots, and performances by Curtis, Donald Pleasance, and stuntman Nick Castle. The lack of gore demonstrates a great amount of restraint on Carpenter's part, and the shoestring budget was made back a hundred-fold by box office revenue and a consistent word-of-mouth campaign. It is undoubtedly the most influential of the 1970's horror films and the best slasher movie of all time.
Runner-ups: Vampire Circus, Martin, The Vampire Lovers, Daughters of Darkness, Straw Dogs, I Spit on Your Grave, House (1977), Piranha!, Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires, Tourist Trap.
Criteria:
Must be a film produced between 1970 and 1979
Must be a horror film, thriller, or have horror-related subject matter
As always, a little backstory...
The Seventies were a decade, much like the Sixties, of revolution. After the Manson murders in Southern California, the American public was exposed to violence never thought of before. The ensuing media circus surrounding the trial of Charles Manson and his associates prompted a new fixation on cults and serial killers. Soon, the macabre and sick exploits of Jeffrey Dahmer, Son of Sam, Ted Bundy, and John Wayne Gacy became subjects of national interest and analysis. The Vietnam War drew to a close, with many veterans returning home mentally and physically destroyed by the countless horrors they had witnessed, which only strengthened the anti-war movement which grew ever-strong in the country. The deaths of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcolm X the previous decade had made those men martyrs in the eyes of their followers, and had spurned an even more radical counter-culture ideology that was adopted by young college and high school students.
These events had the opposite effect on new horror cinema as past events did on old horror. When the Great Depression and World War II hit, people sought movies, especially the fantastical Golden Age horror films, to escape from their real-world troubles. However, now, in this new age of cinema, people went to the cinemas to be faced with troubling questions about the state of the world. New, young filmmakers such as Martin Scorsese, William Friedkin, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and Francis Ford Coppola were rising in the film-making world, breaking the rules of Hollywood and producing some critically acclaimed and high-grossing work such as The Godfather, American Graffiti, The French Connection, Duel, Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Jaws, and Star Wars, a lot of which had more violence and moral ambiguity than was allowed in most major studio fare. Jaws and Star Wars became the first films that were referred to commonly as "blockbusters," setting a new trend in Hollywood.
On the seedier end of the independent movie scene were young, fledgling directors like Brian De Palma, George A. Romero, Wes Craven, John Carpenter, Dan O'Bannon, Tobe Hooper, and Sean S. Cunningham, These men were lovers of film who were raised (at least mostly) on a diet of Universal monster movies, Hammer horror, Hitchcock, and 50's sci-fi schlock. Taking what they loved about the classic horror genre while adding the brutality and violence so present in Seventies culture made for a potent mix that produced some of the best films ever made. By the end of the decade, Carpenter's Halloween reinvented the entire horror genre and spurned forth (arguably) its' most popular sub-genre: the slasher film...
The List:
25. Blacula (1972): This blaxploitation horror film may sound funny on paper, but is actually fairly effective. William Marshall is charismatic in the titular role, and while the plot isn't all that deep, it's pretty good for a cheaply made exploitation movie.
24. Magic (1978): This psychological horror film further popularized the killer doll genre of movies. While it borrows much from previous "killer ventriloquist dummy" media like episodes of The Twilight Zone and the film Dead of Night, it infused a mystery element and was made by a stellar production team: director Richard Attenborough, and a cast featuring Anthony Hopkins, Ann-Margaret, Burgess Meredith, and Ed Lauter elevate this film above the general cheesy killer pupper fare.
23. Valerie and Her Week of Wonders (1970): This surreal and bizarre Czech film is a twisted fairy tale chronicling a young girl named Valerie's encounters with a thief, a masked monster, and a priest, among other things. A dreamlike film that's almost reminiscent of David Lynch, it packs in some weird and unsettling imagery that sticks with the viewer, and is a great example of an exercise in surrealist horror.
22. Deathdream (1974): Bob Clark may be best known today for directing A Christmas Story and Murder By Decree, but in the 70's, he was an independent horror film director. And a good one, at that. His films were ahead of their time, and dark and brutally violent, and, best of all, genuinely unnerving. This film was a commentary on the Vietnam War's effects on the folks back home, as well as a quasi-adaptation of the W.W. Jacobs short story "The Monkey's Paw".
21. The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971): This Vincent Price vehicle came late in his career, but was successful enough to spawn a sequel. A classic revenge story set around the Ten Plagues of Egypt, the film sees Price once again play a disfigured genius driven mad and fueled by vengeful rage. The kills in the film push the boundaries of believability, but are unique and memorable. A campy and often neglected entry in the horror genre, it's one of Price's better films.
20. Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979): Werner Herzog's artful remake of the 1922 classic silent film stars Klaus Kinski in the titular role. Shot in both English and German, this film continues in the trend of Herzog and Kinski's partnership, it is a vivid and beautiful film to look at, and Kinski is perfect as Nosferatu. Despite the allegations of animal cruelty and abuse on the set, which Herzog apparently neglected, the movie is still an immensely enjoyable revamp (no pun intended), and one of the few remakes that is on par with its' source material.
19. Phantasm (1979): This bizarre and eerie supernatural thriller was a locally financed indie film that wound up spawning a string of sequels, and cementing Angus Scrimm's Tall Man character as an icon of the horror genre. With some nightmarish visuals, unconventional structure, and an imposing boogeyman figure as the villain, Phantasm is one of the more underrated 70's horror films.
18. The Brood (1979): David Cronenberg's body horror film serves as a metaphor for feminine empowerment gone awry and as an interesting look at messy divorces, and asks an interesting question: if we could actually manifest those negative emotions we feel towards others, could it wind up controlling us? The shocking and cringe-inducing imagery and nasty special effects paired with those messages part of what Cronenberg does so well: make us think, and make us squirm, often at the same time.
17. Alice, Sweet Alice (1976): Featuring Brooke Shields in her film debut, this slasher film is a cut above the rest. This mostly owes to the exceptionally creepy and haunting mask worn by the killer, a translucent mask highlighted with drag queen-esque makeup. The film was released three times under three different titles: as Communion at the Chicago International Film Festival in 1976, theatrically in 1978 under this title, and a third time in 1981 as Holy Terror to capitalize on Brooke Shields' growing popularity. While borrowing from many previous films, most notably the raincoat motif from Don't Look Now, this movie stands on its' own as one of the more genuinely scary of the slasher films, and one that predates Halloween. And speaking of Don't Look Now...
16. Don't Look Now (1973): A startling thriller about psychic powers, serial killers, and ghost girls, the film, much like many 70's horror films, took elements that made old horror films so great, updated them for modern adult audiences, and were being made by some bigger names in the film industry. This one stars Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie, two major stars, and was directed by the acclaimed Nicolas Roeg. This movie has some visually striking images, and one of the best (and most unexpected) twist endings ever.
15. Black Christmas (1974): Bob Clark shows up again on this list with his dark precursor to A Christmas Story. A brutal and dreamlike film with a mysterious killer, it set a trend for slasher films, and reportedly this was one of the films that inspired John Carpenter's Halloween, as the planned sequel for this film would have taken place on that holiday. The camera angles, opening shot, and violent kills set the stage for Halloween, though this film is even darker, bloodier and more vulgar than that film was. The film has future stars like Olivia Hussey, Andrea Martin, Margot Kidder, and John Saxon, and 2001 star Keir Dullea. The unsolved identity of the killer makes the film unsettling as it leaves so many doors open, and the killer's weird, gender-neutral voice is chilling and sticks in your head.
14. The Hills Have Eyes (1977): Wes Craven's second major horror movie was stars future E.T. star Dee Wallace and is a brutal and unapologetic film that chronicles one family's struggle for survival against an inbred family of feral cannibals. Michael Berryman (the man on the poster) was shot to B-movie stardom for his unique physical appearance and imposing performance. The film was successful enough to spawn a sequel and a remake and its' sequel. The movie also further popularized the 70's sub-genre of middle-America family vs. group of deranged killers, and also popularized the feral cannibal sub-genre.
13. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978): This remake of the 1950's classic by Philip Kaufman stars Donald Sutherland, Leonard Nimoy, Brooke Adams,Veronica Cartwright, and Jeff Goldblum. Managing to be just as memorable as the original in its' own way, with surreal, 70's acid-trip imagery and a harrowing twist ending, this movie also has a much more graphic and nasty pod people transformation process and the logic behind the transformations is actually an improvement over the original, which had a plot hole in that area. While not as iconic or important as the original, this reimagining is definitely one of the best remakes of all time.
12. The Wicker Man (1973): This dark occult mystery film pits a devoutly Christian police detective against an underground pagan cult. Christopher Lee's performance as the villain Lord Summersisle is one of his more underrated, and the cast, featuring Edward Woodward, Ingrid Pitt, Diane Cilento, and Britt Ekland. It has some great suspense, an interesting soundtrack, a compelling mystery that slowly spirals into a much larger conspiracy, and has a fantastic and horrific ending reveal. The hilarious 2006 remake starring Nicolas Cage is only entertaining on an ironic level, and can't hold a candle to the original.
11. Eraserhead (1977): David Lynch's first feature is one of the most nightmarish and stomach-churning movies ever made. The bizarre and uniquely nasty imagery, industrial location and soundtrack, dreamlike narrative, and creepy and odd characters set the standard for Lynch films: symbolic and weird movies that creep under your skin.
10. The Last House on the Left (1972): A brutal and sickening revenge thriller, produced by Sean S. Cunningham and directed by Wes Craven in his debut film, the movie serves a warning about the consequences of revenge. Reflecting the horrific side of the Love Generations showcased by the Manson murders, this grindhouse exploitation film features some of the most brutal violence seen at the time. The violence was enough to get it banned in several countries and cause a lot of controversy upon release. But it is this violence that assaults the viewer and makes them ponder the consequences of it in the real world. Many people mistake this movie for glorifying or sexualizing violence, when it is doing the exact opposite, it is a warning against violence, unlike the 2009 remake, which ends on a slightly happy note and glorifies the revenge sequence at the end of the film as justified.
9. Suspiria (1977): Dario Argento's stylish Italian giallo movie is one of the most beautiful and colorful horror films to look at. Part of his "Three Mothers" trilogy, this movie is famous for its' beautiful cinematography, vivid color palates, and almost fairy tale-esque plot. The score by prog-rock band Goblin is excellent, and set a trend for prog-rock and synth bands composing scores for horror and sci-fi films during the 1980's.
8. Carrie (1976): Based on Stephen King's bestselling 1974 novel, Brian DePalma's masterful adaptation darkened the ending and provided some great cinematography and suspenseful sequences. The climactic dance scene is taut and has the viewer on the edge of their seat, until the moment when all hell breaks loose and Carrie has her brutal revenge on all those who wronged her (and some who didn't). Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie both had Oscar-nominated performances, Spacek for her role as the timid and emotionally troubled teenage girl, and Laurie as her psychotic and domineering Christian mother. Nancy Allen and John Travolta also appear in the film, another case of future A-listers appearing in smaller projects. The relationship between Carrie and her mother is tragic, symbiotic, and cringe-worthy to watch, and is the dramatic backbone of the movie. The first Stephen King movie adaptation was also based on his first novel, and kick-started a string of over 100 adaptations of his various works.
7. The Omen (1976): Richard Donner and David Seltzer's Satanic thriller has a moody and atmospheric score, great lead performances by Gregory Peck, Lee Remick, and David Warner, and one of the best "creepy kid" performances by Harvey Spencer Stephens. The mystery surrounding the boy continues to unravel in unexpected ways, and the film masterfully builds to a crescendo where our leads desperately try to stop the horrible force that is Damien. However, unlike The Exorcist, The Omen leaves an a much more ominous and foreboding ending, with no comforting happy ending to be had.
6. Alien (1979): Dan O'Bannon's script and Ridley Scott's eye of visuals combine to create the greatest of the sci-fi horror movies. H.R. Giger's phallic and iconic creature design and disturbing art style contribute to much of the film's look. The lead performances by Sigourney Weaver, John Hurt, Tom Skerritt, Veronica Cartwright, and Henry Dean Stanton are phenomenal, particularly Weaver's turn as Ellen Ripley, one of the most bad-ass female leads of all time. The effective use of long tracking shots, false scares, and long periods of suspense and build-up make Alien just as much a Gothic horror/slasher film as it is a sci-fi thriller. And although it borrows a lot from the 1950's film It! The Terror from Beyond Space, it also contributed enough original visuals and scares (chest-burster scene) to be its' own film.
5. Dawn of the Dead (1978): George A. Romero's follow-up to his 1968 Night of the Living Dead is is color and cranks up the gore and returns to his social commentary. Instead of being about race relations, it's about mall culture turning Americans into zombies. The leads, including Ken Foree, are great and the set-pieces, especially the final sequence where the survivors must face off against both a biker gang and a horde of incoming zombies is spectacular. It surpasses the original in every conceivable way, and although it has a happier ending (the original cut of the film had a much more somber end), it is a darker film than its' predecessor. It also has one of the best lines/taglines in horror history: "When there's no more room in Hell, the dead walk the Earth."
4. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974): Made on a shoe-string budget with a cast of unknowns (mostly Texas natives), Tobe Hooper's grimy and nasty grindhouse film introduced the world to slasher icon Leatherface and his family of deranged cannibals. A film that remains discomforting today due to its' improvised, documentary-style feel and savage violence (most of which is off-screen and implied, leaving it to the viewers' imagination), it also inspired many modern filmmakers, including Peter Jackson, and was a forerunner of the slasher genre. Gunnar Hansen remains the best Leatherface, mostly due to his convincing portrayal that doesn't make him totally sympathetic like the remake tries, but also reminds us that he, too, is human and has good traits (cares for his family's well-being), but also constantly reminds us that he is a force to be reckoned with. His mask seems more authentic than the remake's as well, further creating this weird blurring-the-lines effect where one can't be sure what they are seeing is staged or not. The other actors, including Ed Neal, are so good at portraying demented killers that one could almost be convinced Hooper just cast real crazy people in his movie.
3. Jaws (1975): Steven Spielberg's innovative blockbuster film faced numerous production problems, resulting in a malfunctioning mechanical shark on set. Due to this, the shark was used more sparingly than Spielberg had hoped, but this led to the team mostly using POV shots of the shark, and because the shark only appeared on screen briefly once in a while, it built up incredible suspense to when it would next appear. With John Williams' iconic and slow-building main theme scoring the film and some great performances by Roy Scheider, Richard Dreyfuss, and Robert Shaw (especially Shaw, who plays the memorable Quint, who gives a chilling monologue about shark eyes), this adventure-thriller based on Peter Benchley's novel remains one of the top 20 films ever made.
2. The Exorcist (1973): William Friedkin's adaptation of William Peter Blatty's demonic possession horror novel (which in turn was based of a reportedly true story) caused mass waves of controversy upon release. Christian groups claimed it was possessed by Lucifer himself, while most of the general public ran screaming from the theater upon seeing it. The special effects by Dick Smith were revolutionary and still look convincing today. The vulgar language, disgusting imagery, and frightening voice of Mercedes McCambridge as possessed Reagan are what make the film so memorable and terrifying to this day. It was the first horror film nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars, and it is led by a stellar cast, featuring Ellen Burstyn, Linda Blair (doing a great performance for a child actress), Jason Miller, Lee J. Cobb, and Max Von Sydow (playing a character decades older than he actually was). The main theme from the album Tubular Bells is up there with John Carpenter's Halloween score as one of the eeriest and most ear-wormy movie themes of all time.
1. Halloween (1978): John Carpenter's classic slasher film introduced the world to the first of the modern boogeymen (Michael Myers) and really defined the tropes of the slasher genre. It was followed by a slew of copycat films, and shot Jamie Lee Curtis (daughter of Janet Leigh) to stardom and set her "scream queen" status. The musical score, pacing, POV and tracking shots, and performances by Curtis, Donald Pleasance, and stuntman Nick Castle. The lack of gore demonstrates a great amount of restraint on Carpenter's part, and the shoestring budget was made back a hundred-fold by box office revenue and a consistent word-of-mouth campaign. It is undoubtedly the most influential of the 1970's horror films and the best slasher movie of all time.
Runner-ups: Vampire Circus, Martin, The Vampire Lovers, Daughters of Darkness, Straw Dogs, I Spit on Your Grave, House (1977), Piranha!, Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires, Tourist Trap.