Change Your Image
Pantalaimon60107
Reviews
The Final Destination (2009)
A better sequel than the previous ones...
You get what you see when it comes to horror sequels these days, and sometimes, that's a good thing. I suppose, in this case, it is a good thing. It's an enjoyable film, and though you may be upset about the lack of characterization- Oh, wait... You're going to see a Final Destination sequel, so you shouldn't be upset by that. You go to see these sequels to see just how elaborate the death scenes are, and for the most part, they don't disappoint until the latter half. At the same time, they're not as head-achingly elaborate as some of the deaths from the previous films, so the simplicity is occasionally welcome.
To move on to the plot (what little there is), the film opens at McKinley Speedway minutes before Bobby Campo has a premonition of a disastrous crash that sends debris into the crowd, causing the upper stands to collapse and kill... What appears to be a sizable amount of people. Being that this premonition deals with cars (much like Ellis' previous entry in the series), you have to wonder why none of the drivers think of braking or trying to pull off to the side of the track (highway, in FD2's case) and lower the body count considerably, but to hell with it, you're going to see a horror movie to be entertained, not to use common sense. I do have to say that this has got to be the best premonition in the series, if a little hastily edited. Anyway, Bobby gets his girlfriend, best friend, his girlfriend's best friend, a security guard, a racist, and some other insignificant people whose only purpose in this film is to die out of the stands. You also have to wonder how a tire could possibly soar hundreds of feet in the air to... Well, you've seen the previews and you already have a good idea of what happens.
The death scenes go from there. None are going to make you particularly squeamish; it's more likely that you'll squirm during the close calls than during the actual death scenes, particularly in a salon shop where getting a pedicure *sounds* disturbing enough as things are. Though more disturbing, I found that the mention (nothing shown, of course) of children's deaths added an unexpected degree of realism to the film, which is a pleasant (quite odd, considering that it deals with the death of children), if disturbing, addition. Admittedly, it isn't much more than the brief mention and a shot of a teddy bear at the accident scene, kind of showing how little the writers wanted to deal with serious subject matter, but it was a quiet little reminder that it isn't just twentysomething yuppies, racists, security guards and mechanics that death has an eye out for.
The film is better than Final Destination 2, which seemed to want to hurry and get the kills out of the way without recalling the rules set forth in the first film, and is better put-together than Final Destination 3, which had the feel of a high school project. It doesn't match up to the first film, but as things are, sequels hardly ever live up to the original. As I said, there's a lack of characterization (you'll remember characters not by their names, but by their defining characteristics, i.e. the Racist, or by their deaths, i.e. the Eye Chick) but you get what you see when it comes to Final Destination films, and in that respect, this film delivers.
S. Darko (2009)
How the hell...
I have to say that I should have seen something like this coming. I mean, the film had a completely different crew, didn't have a theatrical release, the supporting cast was filled with nobodies, etc. etc. Not that any of that is bad, necessarily; there are good sequels that consist of different crews, not many good films that don't have theatrical releases (none that come to mind, but I'm sure a few are worth a look), and casts of nobodies can really help out, but... There's almost nothing that's good in this film.
I will say, however, that the opening five or six minutes are promising enough. The premise itself is promising, too, but just about everything goes wrong after the first five minutes, with all the details fleshed in, which... There's no way to understand this film. I'll say that. Oh, it's simple enough, but there's no way to understand the logic behind most of the characters' actions regarding the tangent universe. How they know what they know is just... Eerie, or the writers being lazy.
I figure I'll go ahead and talk about the story instead of just bitching about its shortcomings, although shortcomings are more than abound. Samantha and her friend are stuck in Utah and the strange events from the first film are thrown in just for kicks. While the world slowly, steadily comes to an end, there's a kidnapping, or maybe that was before they came to town, and there's a party or two with music that nobody at a party at that time would listen to (another complaint that I've got is the soundtrack; Donnie Darko had an amazing soundtrack, whereas this... doesn't).
The bottom line is that this film can't stand with Donnie Darko because it falls so short, but it can't stand on its own because it relies so much on the previous film, which isn't even logical at points, for reasons that anyone unfortunate enough to see this film can figure out for themselves. This is a terrible movie. It's sh!t. You'd be better off buying and watching the original film, the Director's Cut if you've got the original release, or the original release if you've got the Director's Cut. It's money better-spent than spent on this.
Saw V (2008)
The Best Saw Yet... But is that a good thing?
I say that this is the best film of the Saw series, but that's not necessarily a good thing. It's the best because the others sorta' sucked. The original was really quite boring and overly reminiscent of Se7en (the crime scenes, not the crimes are shown; the killer's morals are way too out of whack). The first sequel was decent with its drama, but after the interesting deaths, it degenerates fast. The third film took the drama way too far, though it had a decent idea for its main character's background and some pretty decent deaths. Saw IV was nearly unwatchable due to its color palette. Call me crazy, but it's an important part to making a film tolerable, even if nothing else in the film actually works.
Anyway, we're at Saw V now. After the twists and turns of the other films, this seems like a generally straightforward Saw film. It's got a hero and characters that are... I couldn't say "smart," but they're less idiotic considering some of the other characters in the previous films. There is an actual genuine mystery behind what's going on and why the five victims have been chosen, though the film sort of reaches for ways for them to be killed after they get through the first trap. The villain, this time around, is someone that had been in previous Saw films, but I hadn't quite remembered, which brings up another plus to this film: it actually got me to pay attention during the passages when nobody was being killed. Back to the villain: He/she wasn't as far of a reach as the Saw II twist, considering his/her backstory.
All in all, most of the kills aren't as creative as they have been, yet they aren't too far-fetched, and there is a feeling of deja vu in regards to the victims' predicament (a la Saw II), but the twist, as we've come to expect them, is pretty plausible. It by no means makes for an excellent film, but a better-than-average C-film and the best entry in the series to date.
The Shape of Things (2003)
Not as good as I hoped, but it left a mark
I was a little disappointed with this as a movie. I believe it would be wonderful to see as a stage production. However, after reading a few of Neil LaBute's plays, I've found that only a fair few absolutely need to be translated into a screen adaptation. Take, for example, Reasons to Be Pretty. It's an excellent play, but how can you sell a movie based on the idea that a man said something about his girlfriend that might have been taken offensively? The Shape of Things is somewhat similar in the problem of being translated to the screen. A large portion of the film seems to be going nowhere until the climax takes over. Granted, it's an excellent climax that speaks wonders about human nature and the nature of relationships, as well as our fascination with the surface of things, the shape of them. It warrants repeat viewings, yes, but there's something about the extremely long rising action that kind of pushed me away. Like Reasons to Be Pretty, it seems to be built on too small of an idea to be made into a film. Still, for the most part, and in both cases, the movie is largely enjoyable. My only problem with the film was that Fred Weller occasionally seems to be overacting. Either that, or Evelyn is right when she says that Adam doesn't need someone like that in his life. It's hard for me to see any real connection between Phil and Adam, regardless of the fact that they were roommates. It's also hard for me to see how someone as nice and friendly as Jenny could be engaged to Phil. That problem aside, the film is definitely worth watching. Rachel Weisz is definitely the highlight here. Evelyn's character is fascinating, even moreso after the climax. Paul Rudd and Gretchen Mol are both excellent in their roles. Like I said, Fred Weller seems to be overacting on occasion, but this could perhaps be his character. Regardless, the film is good. For an climax as great as it is, I would have liked a better rising action, but I can overlook that. I'll warn you that a large part of the film is dialogue-driven, but if that doesn't sound off any alarms, you'll be in for a treat.
The Happening (2008)
Too Much or Too Little... I Can't Decide
I suppose this movie is likable. It works. It succeeds at telling a story, and is a nice return for Shamyalan. But... Is it just me, or is both too much and too little shown? I wonder: Do we really need to see all of the violence that there is in the film, if it's only backed up by an unsatisfying, relatively non-violent ending? I also wonder: Can the sentimentality of the film be backed up without more characterization of Elliott and Alma and the situation of their relationship? Let's start with the "too much" idea first. Why do we need to see Central Park being affected by whatever it is, whatever you want to call it? Why do we need to see workers jumping off of a building? Would it not be more frightening to simply hear about the events through radio broadcasts? The uncertainty would definitely scare me more than seeing what is actually happening. Granted, the "seeing" part of things is wonderfully mastered. It just doesn't invoke terror as simply hearing about the events might. To move on with the "too little" idea... Wahlberg and Deschanel are both talented, but are not given enough to really work with. The opening scenes make Deschanel like she does not have the slightest idea what she is doing on film. She simply stares at her phone. This induces more laughs than curiosity. Alma's relationship with Elliott just exists. When Leguizamo's character tells Elliott that he saw Alma crying on their wedding day, it does not offer any real insight. Seeing Alma and Elliott interact makes me think of them being more like strangers than being husband and wife. More interaction between them, aside from the obvious dialogue, would help to bring credibility to the unjustified ending. As for other complaints... The supporting cast of characters is predictably killed off, although the violence hardly ever becomes too graphic. One of the biggest complaints I can register against the movie is the whole reason for the events. Plants? The film would have been better off without any explanation whatsoever. That, as well, would have added to the horror. Still, I did more or less like the movie. It did what it came to do, and did it well enough to be more than simply passable, but not well enough to be admirable. There just should have been more or less than there was.
The Good Girl (2002)
Good, But...
I found this movie to be very strange. I don't mean in the narrative, the style, or even the story in particular. I found the death of a certain character towards the beginning to be strange, although, to be fair, it does level out the death of another character towards the end. I also wonder whether to laugh at Holden/Tom's hysterics, or to be seriously disturbed by some of what he says. Confusion on how certain aspects of this movie are supposed to be taken, I found that I liked it. I loved the clever dialogue, coming mostly from Zooey Deschanel, although one of my favorite lines comes from the store's security guard: when wished a Happy Halloween, he says "I'm not a pagan." The acting is all good. I would have preferred more scenes with Deschanel. I would have liked to see some of the sadness shown in Justine and Holden to be hinted at in everyone else who worked at the store; not necessarily conscious unhappiness, but something simply buried within, something not yet realized. Still, what there is is mostly good. What keeps it from being great is some of the subject matter, whether you are supposed to laugh or be disturbed, and whether or not you actually can laugh after certain scenes. I recommend it. I just recommend that you should be aware of the rapid changes in tone and subject in the film.
28 Weeks Later (2007)
Well...
Whenever someone complains about the original film, they complain about either the time spent on character development or the ending. The character development seems to have been taken care of by... Well, removing character development completely. Aside from the opening scene, one of the most masterful opening scenes in any zombie movie I have ever seen, let alone in any horror movie I have ever seen, there is almost no character development. Children are thrown to you and you are expected to care about them. Personally, I could not have cared any less about them. I can empathize, but I cannot sympathize. Why? Because they are only given screen time to show what they are doing, not what emotions motivate them. When Tammy sees a dead body (presumably for the first time, as she and Andy were not in England during the time of attack) she recoils in disgust, not horror. Yes, the body is gross, but in the moments of silence she has on screen, she does not appear to be truly affected, other than the potential reflex to gag. She acts differently than Jim after he kills an infected child by... Well, hardly acting at all. Granted, the act was different, but I would have liked to see more than what was offered. Another complaint I would like to throw out there is that their father, while infected, seems to show up a hell of a lot more than is necessary. He seems smart enough to avoid being shot by the soldiers he kills (who, mysteriously, after being bitten, do not become infected - their bodies lay in wait to be discovered, so that the general can decide to order code red), he is smart enough to avoid being killed in the chaos that ensues when several others are infected, he avoids the firebombing (by cleverly hiding behind a wall, while his poor wife's body, with all of that steel and concrete between it and the explosion, is burned), and he manages to avoid the gas and surviving soldiers. He's pretty smart for one of the infected. The film leaves too much up to mere coincidence. Of course, there is always my complaint of how the supporting cast of characters is predictably killed off, until all who remain are the truly important ones. The movie earns points in its action scenes, which are surprisingly intense. I liked what I believed to be were Hot Fuzz references (a boy from Sanford and a swan, just to name a few). The helicopter scene is a stretch, but an enjoyable stretch. Sadly, what there is does not match up to what there should have been. Still, if nothing else, there is one improvement: a better ending.
Diary of the Dead (2007)
Better Than Bad, Worse Than Great
I'm a pretty big fan of zombie films. Romero's films, mostly. There was a time last summer where I would have been willing to write an essay on Land of the Dead and how it spoke on humanity, on people as being plastic, caged birds. His next film has rolled around, in wake of Cloverfield. I can't really say which I prefer. Both are fun, but... Not quite great. I would have liked more and less with both films. I would have liked more of the action and less of the news reports. I agree with the opening scene news report, but there are too many scenes involving them for a ninety minute movie. One of the things that worked to Night of the Living Dead's advantage was the radio broadcasts. Nobody knew what was going on. That made everything scarier. Here, you're shown news report after news report. It's interesting, but I would have preferred more of Cloverfield's approach, where Hud showed newsreports by aiming the camera at the television. I'm also a little tired with the traditional way supporting characters are killed off. This film offered a little less of a traditional manner, but the cameramen and camerawoman all survived until the end. Granted, the supporting cast was not quite as killed off as in other films, so I suppose that can slide. My complaints aside, the film is actually pretty good. Well, good. It seemed to cover elements of the previous Of the Dead films in several of the locations, goings-on, and characters, including a farm/farmhouse, stealing the essentials, a sort of bunker and two sets of soldiers, and a nice house that did not look too different than what I imagined a suite at Fiddler's Green might have been. There are other good qualities about the movie. Most of the special effects work, if some are a little not-too-special. I liked the message Romero was trying to get across. I liked the remark about the problem with immigration being people crossing the border between life and death. I liked the final few lines. The zombie films are finally ending as they should, questioning whether or not survival in such a world is really something to wish for. Though not as essential as Night, Dawn, or Land, Diary is definitely something to look for in the store. If nothing else, you can probably download it from a blog.
The Shining (1980)
Somewhat Of A Disappointment...
At the moment, I'm reading the Stephen King novel. I'm a little past halfway through the book. I'd seen fragments of the movie before, including the end, so I thought "What the hell? I'll watch it while it's on." I was engrossed for the first thirty minutes, until I realised how little interest I held in the characters. Yes, Jack Nicholson's Jack Torrance is amazing, and his descent into madness is one of the most interesting parts of the film, but... How could anyone sympathize with him? Or Danny? Or Wendy? In the novel, you understand what motivates each of these characters. In the film, you're just expected to accept them doing what they do as they do it. I can give Kubrick that he didn't have a whole lot of time for characterization if he wanted to add in all he did, but I'd have liked to see more, which is rare for me after watching a two and one-half hour movie.
One thing the film gets completely right is the mood: along with the characters, you actually feel trapped within the Overlook. Even the establishing shots of the road leading up to the hotel are foreboding, despite how amazingly beautiful they are. Each of Jack's hallucinations (if you can call them that) are startling and, for lack of a better word, trippy. His slow descent into insanity is enthralling. Tony's "appearances," though considerably disappointing when put next to the novel's version, are also horrifying.
However, as I said before, the problem is characterization. I could have cared less for anyone on the screen, whether they lived or died. I can look past the lack of wasps or firehose snakes (though I would have loved to see Danny call one a "cheap little prick") or hedge monsters; I just want characters I can sympathize with, who I can feel something for. I congratulate the actors wholeheartedly for doing what they can with a script that seems sometimes forced, as if dialog was hastily thrown in just for the sake of it. All I want is to care what happens to the characters in the end. That's not to say I wasn't scared or tensed-up when the time came; it's just to say that, after all I've heard of the film, this is just somewhat of a disappointment.
If nothing else, Nicholson's performance alone makes the film worth watching.
Shoot 'Em Up (2007)
Kick-Ass Movie
I wasn't expecting much of this when I saw the commercial, aside from a 10-year-old's wet dream: something like Sin City, but with much less of a... Shall we say, plot? After seeing that Ebert and Travers, my two main review men, gave it positive reviews, I decided I might as well go to see it. Turns out, upon first instinct, I was correct. At the same time, I couldn't help but smile for the whole movie.
For anyone who hasn't seen Sin City, I find this to be a very hard movie to explain. Imagine comic books with mindless, but stylish violence, and you'll have Sin City, and the obvious inspiration for this. Where else will you see a man using a gun and a merry-go-round to keep a baby alive? Or, where else will you see a mid-air gunfight involving fighting with parachutes as well? Where are you going to see a man drop his gun in a toilet, take it apart, and use a blow dryer to heat it so that it will fire? And, where else are you going to see the one hundred and one uses of a carrot? It's both tasteless and mindless, but it's also vaguely stylish.
I'll just go ahead and say that the plot is almost virtually non-existent. The script was written by someone who was definitely not looking for any awards, although it is far from Godawful. It was also probably written by an action junkie who has either seen too little or too much action within the past few years. The acting, on the flip side, is really quite wonderful, considering the script. Regardless of the fact that the movie goes too far past the point of no return within the first five minutes, it's quite a great result.
To save anyone some trouble, I don't recommend going to see this if you're going to mind the fact that 99.9% of this movie is violence to the infinite degree, and .1% is what could have been a plot. I will say, though, that the movie is completely enjoyable if you're wanting to see a kick-ass action movie without an ounce of sense. All in all, I have to say that I loved it. Far from perfect, but beyond wonderful.
Nine Inch Nails Live: Beside You in Time (2007)
Beside You in Time
This was a great concert DVD, but at the same time, some of it seems like it's already been done before. The fact of the matter is, the version of "Closer" performed during this concert is almost the same as the version performed on the And All That Could Have Been tour, aside from the additional expletive. However, the band manages to kick a good amount of their line-up in high gear. Beside You In Time has one of the best live versions of "Something I Can Never Have" that I've ever seen. Also, his new material seems to have a new life that you didn't hear on the With_Teeth album, most notably in "Love Is Not Enough" and "The Line Begins To Blur." In addition to this, the concert isn't as much of a blur of metal and rage you'd think it might be. There's a good variety of songs here, just what you might expect to see on a Greatest Hits album. It's not all dull-sounding, like And All That Could Have Been. As lively as the hard rock songs are, the ballads like "Something I Can Never Have," "Right Where It Belongs," and "Hurt" are just as vivid. All in all, this concert DVD is nothing new, especially in the way of concert DVDs. At the same time, with the band kicking it up in high-gear, it's a good choice to get, whether you're a NIN enthusiast or just an average fan.
The Hills Have Eyes (2006)
The Hills Have Eyes
There are plenty of movies I would much rather see than this. I thought I was in for a good ride, considering how much everyone seemed to like it. However, it was far from a good ride. I could care less about the violence or gore, that's not what turned me off of the movie. It was the fact that very little makes sense in this movie, which makes it hard to interact with or even feel anything for. Another fact that makes this movie hard to interact with is that the movie treats the audience as if we're all idiots. For example: The movie starts out with a montage of nuclear explosions, as if we really need to see each and every shot to get how screwed-up the mutants are. It also shows the predictable shot of mutants killing scientists in radioactive suits right after the fact, as if we need to know that the mutants are violent against people. And, of course, the movie goes on predictably, with everyone doing all the wrong things for all the wrong reasons. Characters split up and go on their own ways, leave each other behind, chase after idiot dogs, et cetera. One of the only surprising things is who lives and who dies. Aside from that, I had almost literally no interest in this movie. Personally, I cannot think of anything where I cared less as to what happens. (Note: The spoilers I listed occur in the first few minutes of the movie.)