10/21/2008
This is a wild horror film directed by John Gulager, son of actor Clu Gulager (who is in this film), is a product of the Project Greenlight thing created by Ben Affleck and Matt Damon. There was a lot of talk about this film. I guess the director had some people skills issues and supposedly it went over schedule, etc. Whatever, I didn't really hear much about it.
I saw the first five or so minutes a year or so ago with a friend and we didn't like the wildly jerky camera movements at the time. Really hard to see what was going on. So I blew it off then. But since, I've heard many people say good things about it and now they have filmed two sequels with the second just being released a week or so ago. So I figured I'd give a another shot. Being Halloween season, it's a good choice. Turns out, I liked it.
So, these creatures show up at this bar in the middle of the American southwest desert and trap a bunch of people inside. Much blood and gore ensue. This thing is pretty fast and ferocious with not a lot of down time. The creatures are pretty frightening and the humor is camp and fun. And again, the gore and blood is gratuitous, but that's good for this film. But keep in mind, this is NOT for the squeamish.
And once you settle in, the camera work actually works to its' advantage, both creatively and fiscally. It's a low budget film, so the fast camera movements keep the creatures scary without seeing too much. Though when you do see the creatures, and you do, they look great.
There are a slew of actors you'll recognize from TV and some film, among them are Clu Gulager, Judah Friedlander, Krista Allen, Balthazar Getty, Navi Rawat, Henry Rollins, and Jason Mewes. And you know, they are all great.
Happily, there are things in this movie you haven't seen before, and they will make you squirm and laugh at the same time. Some really over-the-top stuff. And there's even a few twists that surprised me, which is hard to do these days with a horror film.
You like creature horror? Check this out.
3 1/2 to 4 really gorey stars. : )
~ Neil
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
"The Golden Compass"
10/17/2008
This is that movie based on a book series, "The Dark Materials", that supposedly are filled with anti-religion or pagan subtext. Whatever. When you see the film, it won't matter. Why? Because it just isn't that good a film.
I won't spend an inordinate amount of time on this, because I just won't need it. This movie is like reading the book but only getting random sections and pages. It's fairly convoluted and much is not explained at all let alone thoroughly.
This "Golden Compass" is supposed to tell the holder of it the truth. But not everyone can make it work. They don't really tell you how, though. This little girl moves the three hands of it, each to a different little picture and then it glows and, well, then the camera goes into it real close and then as if it goes, oh, I don't know- into the compass or something and shows her stuff. It's pretty random and they certainly are expecting the audience to suspend the hell out of our disbelief.
Oh, I know, it's a fantasy movie, but if you don't establish some rules and explain things a little, you lose the audience; they won't care. And I didn't.
And then there's all the animal spirits. Everyone has one and if you kill it or the person, the other dies, too. Well, other than some fun scenes of giant armored polar bears fighting, This is sort of inexplicable, too.
This movie lacks all the emotional components of "The Chronicles of Narnia" films and the visual effects are not as impressive. It's just not nearly as satisfying or engaging. Certainly not for adults. As for kids, you might get some into it, but some of it will be too dark and action oriented and it will still be full of unexplained nonsense.
You should probably just keep to the books on this one, even though this movie ends clearly expecting a sequel. Not for me, thanks.
2 stars, maybe 1 1/2
~ Neil
This is that movie based on a book series, "The Dark Materials", that supposedly are filled with anti-religion or pagan subtext. Whatever. When you see the film, it won't matter. Why? Because it just isn't that good a film.
I won't spend an inordinate amount of time on this, because I just won't need it. This movie is like reading the book but only getting random sections and pages. It's fairly convoluted and much is not explained at all let alone thoroughly.
This "Golden Compass" is supposed to tell the holder of it the truth. But not everyone can make it work. They don't really tell you how, though. This little girl moves the three hands of it, each to a different little picture and then it glows and, well, then the camera goes into it real close and then as if it goes, oh, I don't know- into the compass or something and shows her stuff. It's pretty random and they certainly are expecting the audience to suspend the hell out of our disbelief.
Oh, I know, it's a fantasy movie, but if you don't establish some rules and explain things a little, you lose the audience; they won't care. And I didn't.
And then there's all the animal spirits. Everyone has one and if you kill it or the person, the other dies, too. Well, other than some fun scenes of giant armored polar bears fighting, This is sort of inexplicable, too.
This movie lacks all the emotional components of "The Chronicles of Narnia" films and the visual effects are not as impressive. It's just not nearly as satisfying or engaging. Certainly not for adults. As for kids, you might get some into it, but some of it will be too dark and action oriented and it will still be full of unexplained nonsense.
You should probably just keep to the books on this one, even though this movie ends clearly expecting a sequel. Not for me, thanks.
2 stars, maybe 1 1/2
~ Neil
Monday, August 11, 2008
"The Fountain"
When I saw the trailers for this originally, I really wanted to see it. I also like the Darren Aranofsky guy directing. Then I heard all sorts of not so good things about this movie and I got disappointed. I decided to wait.
And lo, it came up on my Netflix. I watched this movie with relatively low expectations. That being said, I didn't hate this movie. I didn't hate it at all. Dare I say, I even kinda liked it. Oh, it's not without flaws, I can assure you. Then I watched the DVD extras, and it cast the movie in an even kinder light. Well, maybe not kinder, but it certainly put some things in perspective.
The story is of a doctor trying to save his wife from a malignant tumor she has in her brain. But it also flashes back to a conquistador trying to find the Tree of Life, whose sap can heal all and supposedly give you ever-lasting life. It also leaps forward to the future, where this doctor is trying to save the Tree of Life by traveling to a dying star whose death will create a rebirth.
Confusing? Impossible to tie together? Yeah, I know. But astonishingly, it does.
This is science fiction, a love story, and a rumination on the acceptance of death. At first, the Queen of Spain (Rachel Weisz) charges a conquistador (Hugh Jackman) to find this Tree of Life. When he does, and returns with the sap of the Tree, she will be his "Eve". The story jumps forward to Dr. Creo, (Jackman) desperately seeking a cure for his wife (Weisz). She is dying of a tumor. He is consumed with conquering death and finding a way to keep it from taking his wife. His wife has been writing a book, and as he reads it, we find it is the story of the conquistador and the Queen. She left the last chapter for her husband to write. Then the story shifts again, forward another 500 years. In a clear spherical bubble is an old tree and Dr. Creo. He is sustained by it but is clearly trying to save the tree from dying by reaching this nebula.
To me, it was unclear whether this far future event was really happening or if it was perhaps the final chapter in the book that the doctor wrote. They never make it clear. This is one of the faults of the film; not so much literally, but just the fact that there seems to be some subtle things that are foggy. Or maybe just left to the audience.
The visuals in this film are wonderful. And VERY little CG is used. Aranovsky wanted to use as much practical effects as possible. The DVD extras are well worth watching for this. Also you get to see how the process of this movie played out. Apparently started in 2002, they started production in Australia, but the studio pulled the plug when they found the budget sky-rocketing. The sets were enormous and it was going to be really epic. But when it all fell through, it was 8 months before production got started again on a MUCH smaller scale. Seeing all this made me appreciate what they ended up with all the more. I wold certainly liked to have seen this movie as Aranovsky's original vision. Perhaps some of the imperfections are a result of having to rewrite the film on a much smaller scale, but I suppose we won't ever really know.
There is some very worthy stuff here about death, a subject that I find interesting and terrifying all at once. I enjoyed the performances, the Production Design, and the essence of the love story. No, it's not perfect. But I feel there is enough here to warrant a rental. And definitely watch the Special Features as they provide some worthy insight.
This would be at least 2 1/2 stars for me; maybe 3.
~ Neil
And lo, it came up on my Netflix. I watched this movie with relatively low expectations. That being said, I didn't hate this movie. I didn't hate it at all. Dare I say, I even kinda liked it. Oh, it's not without flaws, I can assure you. Then I watched the DVD extras, and it cast the movie in an even kinder light. Well, maybe not kinder, but it certainly put some things in perspective.
The story is of a doctor trying to save his wife from a malignant tumor she has in her brain. But it also flashes back to a conquistador trying to find the Tree of Life, whose sap can heal all and supposedly give you ever-lasting life. It also leaps forward to the future, where this doctor is trying to save the Tree of Life by traveling to a dying star whose death will create a rebirth.
Confusing? Impossible to tie together? Yeah, I know. But astonishingly, it does.
This is science fiction, a love story, and a rumination on the acceptance of death. At first, the Queen of Spain (Rachel Weisz) charges a conquistador (Hugh Jackman) to find this Tree of Life. When he does, and returns with the sap of the Tree, she will be his "Eve". The story jumps forward to Dr. Creo, (Jackman) desperately seeking a cure for his wife (Weisz). She is dying of a tumor. He is consumed with conquering death and finding a way to keep it from taking his wife. His wife has been writing a book, and as he reads it, we find it is the story of the conquistador and the Queen. She left the last chapter for her husband to write. Then the story shifts again, forward another 500 years. In a clear spherical bubble is an old tree and Dr. Creo. He is sustained by it but is clearly trying to save the tree from dying by reaching this nebula.
To me, it was unclear whether this far future event was really happening or if it was perhaps the final chapter in the book that the doctor wrote. They never make it clear. This is one of the faults of the film; not so much literally, but just the fact that there seems to be some subtle things that are foggy. Or maybe just left to the audience.
The visuals in this film are wonderful. And VERY little CG is used. Aranovsky wanted to use as much practical effects as possible. The DVD extras are well worth watching for this. Also you get to see how the process of this movie played out. Apparently started in 2002, they started production in Australia, but the studio pulled the plug when they found the budget sky-rocketing. The sets were enormous and it was going to be really epic. But when it all fell through, it was 8 months before production got started again on a MUCH smaller scale. Seeing all this made me appreciate what they ended up with all the more. I wold certainly liked to have seen this movie as Aranovsky's original vision. Perhaps some of the imperfections are a result of having to rewrite the film on a much smaller scale, but I suppose we won't ever really know.
There is some very worthy stuff here about death, a subject that I find interesting and terrifying all at once. I enjoyed the performances, the Production Design, and the essence of the love story. No, it's not perfect. But I feel there is enough here to warrant a rental. And definitely watch the Special Features as they provide some worthy insight.
This would be at least 2 1/2 stars for me; maybe 3.
~ Neil
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
"The Tracy Fragments"
7/29/2008
This is a little independent movie starring that very watchable Ellen Page who made such a big splash in "Juno". I actually really like her. I dug her in "Hard Candy", too. That's an intense film.
I really liked the premise I read of this movie. It opens with Tracy sitting on a bus wrapped only in a shower curtain. We want to find out how and why she got there. Along the away, we find out she's been looking for her little brother whom she managed to hypnotize into thinking he's a dog. Her parents have sent her to a psychiatrist who may actually need one himself. On her search, Tracy fantasizes about a new boy at school whom she likes.
This is, for lack of a better description, a sort of coming of age story. But it's a tragic one. I think Ellen Page is great. She's sensitive, rebellious, sexy and naive all at once. The rest of the actors are good, too, but I'm not familiar with any of them.
The way the film is presented is as much a character as any of the actors. That is both a good thing, and bad. Much of the film's scenes are shown in multiple frames. This is an obvious reference to the title, "fragments", as well as the idea that this story is told in the first person via Tracy's memories. The idea that our memory is not always linear, that it comes in pieces, so all the varied frames supposedly represent that idea.
Honestly? It got kinda annoying after a while. I don't mind telling a story through memories, starting at one point and working our way back to find out the events that got them there, but when you start messing with the frames on screen, it gets pretty irksome. And these things move around and change images, it just gets to be too much.
Other than that filming style, I liked the story. It's no musical comedy, though, so don't expect "Juno", because it isn't. And I think it's definitely a movie rental rather than a theater movie. It doesn't cost as much. : )
See ya in the queue, kids.
This is a little independent movie starring that very watchable Ellen Page who made such a big splash in "Juno". I actually really like her. I dug her in "Hard Candy", too. That's an intense film.
I really liked the premise I read of this movie. It opens with Tracy sitting on a bus wrapped only in a shower curtain. We want to find out how and why she got there. Along the away, we find out she's been looking for her little brother whom she managed to hypnotize into thinking he's a dog. Her parents have sent her to a psychiatrist who may actually need one himself. On her search, Tracy fantasizes about a new boy at school whom she likes.
This is, for lack of a better description, a sort of coming of age story. But it's a tragic one. I think Ellen Page is great. She's sensitive, rebellious, sexy and naive all at once. The rest of the actors are good, too, but I'm not familiar with any of them.
The way the film is presented is as much a character as any of the actors. That is both a good thing, and bad. Much of the film's scenes are shown in multiple frames. This is an obvious reference to the title, "fragments", as well as the idea that this story is told in the first person via Tracy's memories. The idea that our memory is not always linear, that it comes in pieces, so all the varied frames supposedly represent that idea.
Honestly? It got kinda annoying after a while. I don't mind telling a story through memories, starting at one point and working our way back to find out the events that got them there, but when you start messing with the frames on screen, it gets pretty irksome. And these things move around and change images, it just gets to be too much.
Other than that filming style, I liked the story. It's no musical comedy, though, so don't expect "Juno", because it isn't. And I think it's definitely a movie rental rather than a theater movie. It doesn't cost as much. : )
See ya in the queue, kids.
"The Last Mimzy"
7/23/2008
We're starting pretty random here, so I'll just get on with it. I just returned the movie, "The Last Mimzy". This is one of those family movies with a fantasy/sci-fi theme about two misfit kids that find a strange box filled with strange objects and toys. And no, not their father's gift to their mother from the Adam and Eve catalogue.
This is a strange box sent from the future by a scientist trying to save the human race. Apparently pollution from chemicals and such have taken their toll on us in the future and have muddled our DNA so badly that we're dying out. So this scientist sends this box to the past, of which this is the last they can send, to try to collect the information they need to save our future.
One of the objects is a stuffed bunny, that the little girl names "Mimzy". It seems to talk to her and tells her stuff. And the geode rocks seem to levitate and swirl at her command. Then her brother can hear the sounds of the Universe and sees hyper-advanced geometric designs everywhere.
This is all to lead up to something that helps our future. In the meantime, their parents think their kids are nuts. Or geniuses. Or nutty geniuses. strangely, the boys science teacher thinks he may be a special child based on the drawings he makes of mandalas that the teacher seems to be having dreams about. So there's a bunch of stuff about mandalas in this movie. And stuff about "Alice in Wonderland", hence the Mimzy reference.
Is this a bad movie? No, not at all. In fact, it's alright. It's also not amazing. Based on the 5 star rating system at Netflix, I gave it a three. I would liked to have given it two and a half, but they don't have that option. I wish they would. There are a LOT of movies that fall into the 3 star category, and some of those really should be two and a half. Some movies are only ok, but not so ok that I "liked" them. This one is just ok. I was mildly entertained for about an hour and a half, but I don't know that I would earnestly recommend it. Maybe if you have a 10-12 year old they would like it.
'Til next time, see ya in the queue.
~ Neil
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
