It might seem like a waste of time to bother writing a review of Shyamalan's latest. The reviews were bound to be horrible from the start: It's a film by one of the most hated (or at best, polarizing) directors in Hollywood, and it's an adaptation of a popular cartoon. I don't want to just write an essay defending it, but given the "critical consensus," I do intend to argue why this film's merits make it worthwhile for some viewers, despite some serious flaws.
Let's get this out of the way. This movie is for fans of the TV series, and for people who probably would like the show if they took the time to watch it. Avatar: The Last Airbender is an attempt to Westernize Japanese storytelling methods. It uses an art style similar to popular anime cartoons and contains elements of Eastern philosophy and religion. The fantasy setting allows for a great sense of magic and wonder, with equal parts action, humor, and melodrama in the story. If you like the series for all these things, then you are set up to like the movie, as it is designed to be very much the same in these regards. Many moviegoers and critics will see The Last Airbender expecting something different, and to them, it can easily appear to be just a hot mess.
That said, some aspects of this movie are a hot mess. For starters, there's the plot. The first half of the movie is a poor attempt at giving a Cliffnote rundown of the series. Shyamalan still tries to combine family-friendly action with the wondrous, artistic approach he's known for. But here, it just feels disjointed and incoherent. In the second half, the script is just as bad as in the first, but the plot brings its focus to a much more manageable sequence of events.
Many people have noted the bad acting in the movie. To a point, I strongly disagree. I think the real problem is in the script, which frequently does not allow for coherent storytelling or realistic character interaction. The actors, however, do a good job of filling the shoes of characters in a fantasy world. While the way they act might seem very unrealistic to us, it actually is fitting for a world unlike our own. Shyamalan has done well with this previously in The Village, and it is just as noticeable here, if you can suspend your disbelief that far.
I briefly mentioned earlier that the series was successful in creating a sense of wonder with its fantasy action and attractive artwork. Replicating this feeling is the one place where the film shines, and it is a huge selling point. You don't need to see it in 3-D to be blown away by the floating water, the dance-like magic, and the spirit world. This film is visually and aurally beautiful, and I think it's the best argument in recent years for why the otherwise incompetent M. Night should still be allowed to make movies. At the very least, let him finish this trilogy.
Yes, if you go to see this film, one part of you will have to acknowledge that it's a special effects movie. At the same time, you will have to take it for what it is and allow yourself to be sucked into another world, not to mention that you will have to get used to a style of storytelling that is largely unfamiliar to American audiences. As if that's not enough, it seems to awkwardly straddle the line between a kids' movie and a PG-13 fantasy epic. But despite some substantial flaws, The Last Airbender is just effective enough to suck you in and--dare I say--move you like few films can... if you let it. I don't think I need to say at this point that it's not for everyone. Most typical moviegoers will have every reason to dislike it. But for those that can appreciate it for its merits, there is a surprising amount to appreciate.
Caius's rating: 3 stars
Monday, July 5, 2010
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Leiahdorus: Ode to the Builders Review
Leiahdorus has done it again. And what I actually mean is, they've done something entirely different. Ode to the Builders is a relatively ambitious album for the indie synthpop band, but for the most part, it works and represents a maturing of the band's style.
The first obvious change is the addition of a real drummer and more present guitars (is that a guitar solo I hear?). To my relief, I found that they had not abandoned their electro style in favor of a more mainstream indie rock sound. Instead, it's just closer to an even blend than it had been. The opening song, "They Have Eyes" is the biggest showcase for their style, not to mention that it's easily the most accessible song they have ever done. The featured songs from previous albums enchanted genre listeners for their uniqueness, but let's face it; not all of your friends would be able to listen to it and say, "Damn, that's a good song." "They Have Eyes" gives you that.
The title song is what I really think of as the beginning of the album. It sets a far darker tone than the band's previous albums have had. It also establishes a musical direction for the remainder of the songs, although not all of them are as consistently strong (more on that later). It's a great song, nuff said.
"Childhood's End" is where the accessibility ends and I'm reminded of the old Leiahdorus. Not that this is a bad thing, but some may be very suddenly turned off by the sharp increase in "weirdness." Or should I say uniqueness? That depends on your ability to stomach it. If you're a fan of Leiahdorus already, you should feel right at home. It's for the sake of the new listeners that I think it might have been better to save "Childhood's End" for later in the album to ease the musical shift a bit.
This is only the beginning of the awkward transitions and sharp shifts. "When Hello Meets Goodbye" would have been a much better candidate to follow "Ode to the Builders" than "Childhood's End," although the latter is the better song overall. "Forward Blindly" borders on heavy with a pounding distorted bass and high electric guitar in 6/8 meter. It, too, feels out of place, despite being one of the better songs.
"Malory" is track 6. From there forward the album goes downhill. That's not to say it gets bad, but it (quite suddenly) mellows out tremendously and lacks any real standout tracks. "Malory" is a pretty little tune and little more. "Snow in July" is enchanting, yet too repetitive for its own good; even though it's relatively short already, it could have been shorter for the sake of avoiding the stale feeling it gets. "Blankets" is the longest song on the album, and rightfully so in this case. It might not make it onto your favorite playlist, but it follows up on some earlier themes and is probably the most worthwhile song in the latter half of the album. "Nautilus" is fittingly unique, but not particularly strong. I think it would have been better suited for a B-side or special edition release.
I feel weird saying this, but to me, the album seems to end at "In 20 Minutes the Light Will Change." It's neither slow nor heavy, but it sounds very dark and gives the impression of very strongly driving the album to a close. Then, "Tristessa" comes out of nowhere. A bonus track? If it is, then the following two songs are bonus tracks as well. What's going on here? "Tristessa" is one of those songs that screams "bonus track," not because it's too weak for the core of the album, but because it's so blatantly out of character. After this awkward sequence, we are treated to a real closing as strong as the opening (though not quite as good a song as "They Have Eyes") in "We Have Burn."
I don't mean to complain. I only nitpick this album because there is so much right with it and some better organization and planning could have made it excellent as a complete album. I think this is especially important for Leiahdorus because they have never been a band for the iPod generation; that is, their songs are not good for playlists and they will not appeal to everyone. The real appeal of the band is to listen a full Leiahdorus album. Perhaps for that, Parallel Universe was their best. But Ode to the Builders just has so much that the previous albums lacked: far greater accessibility (in a few songs), a more mature and better-blended style, cohesive recurring themes, and dare I say more than one song that I could argue is their best to date.
Yes, if you're new to Leiahdorus, this is where I suggest you begin, and I think you will be glad you did. If you are a longtime fan, you may be bothered by the flow of the album as I was, but still, within it you will find more than a little bit of their best work. They took their time and they made it count. It's not perfect, but it's essentially what I had hoped for during the long wait.
Caius's rating: 3.5 stars
The first obvious change is the addition of a real drummer and more present guitars (is that a guitar solo I hear?). To my relief, I found that they had not abandoned their electro style in favor of a more mainstream indie rock sound. Instead, it's just closer to an even blend than it had been. The opening song, "They Have Eyes" is the biggest showcase for their style, not to mention that it's easily the most accessible song they have ever done. The featured songs from previous albums enchanted genre listeners for their uniqueness, but let's face it; not all of your friends would be able to listen to it and say, "Damn, that's a good song." "They Have Eyes" gives you that.
The title song is what I really think of as the beginning of the album. It sets a far darker tone than the band's previous albums have had. It also establishes a musical direction for the remainder of the songs, although not all of them are as consistently strong (more on that later). It's a great song, nuff said.
"Childhood's End" is where the accessibility ends and I'm reminded of the old Leiahdorus. Not that this is a bad thing, but some may be very suddenly turned off by the sharp increase in "weirdness." Or should I say uniqueness? That depends on your ability to stomach it. If you're a fan of Leiahdorus already, you should feel right at home. It's for the sake of the new listeners that I think it might have been better to save "Childhood's End" for later in the album to ease the musical shift a bit.
This is only the beginning of the awkward transitions and sharp shifts. "When Hello Meets Goodbye" would have been a much better candidate to follow "Ode to the Builders" than "Childhood's End," although the latter is the better song overall. "Forward Blindly" borders on heavy with a pounding distorted bass and high electric guitar in 6/8 meter. It, too, feels out of place, despite being one of the better songs.
"Malory" is track 6. From there forward the album goes downhill. That's not to say it gets bad, but it (quite suddenly) mellows out tremendously and lacks any real standout tracks. "Malory" is a pretty little tune and little more. "Snow in July" is enchanting, yet too repetitive for its own good; even though it's relatively short already, it could have been shorter for the sake of avoiding the stale feeling it gets. "Blankets" is the longest song on the album, and rightfully so in this case. It might not make it onto your favorite playlist, but it follows up on some earlier themes and is probably the most worthwhile song in the latter half of the album. "Nautilus" is fittingly unique, but not particularly strong. I think it would have been better suited for a B-side or special edition release.
I feel weird saying this, but to me, the album seems to end at "In 20 Minutes the Light Will Change." It's neither slow nor heavy, but it sounds very dark and gives the impression of very strongly driving the album to a close. Then, "Tristessa" comes out of nowhere. A bonus track? If it is, then the following two songs are bonus tracks as well. What's going on here? "Tristessa" is one of those songs that screams "bonus track," not because it's too weak for the core of the album, but because it's so blatantly out of character. After this awkward sequence, we are treated to a real closing as strong as the opening (though not quite as good a song as "They Have Eyes") in "We Have Burn."
I don't mean to complain. I only nitpick this album because there is so much right with it and some better organization and planning could have made it excellent as a complete album. I think this is especially important for Leiahdorus because they have never been a band for the iPod generation; that is, their songs are not good for playlists and they will not appeal to everyone. The real appeal of the band is to listen a full Leiahdorus album. Perhaps for that, Parallel Universe was their best. But Ode to the Builders just has so much that the previous albums lacked: far greater accessibility (in a few songs), a more mature and better-blended style, cohesive recurring themes, and dare I say more than one song that I could argue is their best to date.
Yes, if you're new to Leiahdorus, this is where I suggest you begin, and I think you will be glad you did. If you are a longtime fan, you may be bothered by the flow of the album as I was, but still, within it you will find more than a little bit of their best work. They took their time and they made it count. It's not perfect, but it's essentially what I had hoped for during the long wait.
Caius's rating: 3.5 stars
Sunday, February 14, 2010
The Lightning Thief review
A high school loser goes to the Olympics! Wait, make that... Olympus! When he finds out he is the son of the Greek god Poseidon, Percy Jackson goes to Hogwarts--I mean, Half-Blood Camp (I shit you not)--to learn to become a powerful wizard--I mean, Greek hero.
Alright, alright. I'm actually not one of those people who will gripe about the story's likenesses to Harry Potter, because I think they're really just characteristics of this particular subgenre of young adult fantasy, rather than actual Potter rip-offs. But seriously, The Lightning Thief (film) feels very much like Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (film). I think we have Mr. Columbus to thank for that.
So here's the rest of the story in a nutshell, for real this time. Once he's at Half-Blood Camp, Percy meets a hot chick (an adjective which I would debate with Mr. Jackson in this case) and discovers that his black friend is really his guardian satyr. Once he is informed that Zeus's treasured lightning bolt has been stolen and Hades has stolen his mom, he decides to embark on an epic quest across the USA to get to Hades and rescue his mom, instead of taking the advice of Pierce Brosnan. The hot chick and black friend catch him in the act and decide to tag along. Along the way he meets several mythical figures and escapes several challenges.
So far so good, right? The problem isn't so much in the concept; it's in the plot progression. Too many transitions leave plotholes that we're supposed to just go with. Why on Earth do they still care about the time limit to get the lightning bolt when they've abandoned that quest entirely to go to Hades instead? Oh, I guess they must be connected somehow, even though the characters don't know it. Hmmmmm. Some of these plotholes can be filled with a sentence or two, but, well, they should have been. Others are just meant to go over our heads. Worse than that are some of the character motivations that have a nasty tendency to be conveniently explained in a brief bit of dialogue, a trend that has become sadly typical of young adult fantasy movie adaptations. "Why did you just do that?" "Oh, for this reason." "...Oh, okay. (moves along)." And this happens again and again. It's very weak storytelling if you ask me, and I'm guessing it stems from a poor attempt to cram as many of the events of the book into the film as possible while fitting it into 2 hours. But I know from seeing good adaptations that it can be done much better than this.
The acting is quite a mixed bag. Percy himself is very good in the beginning at acting like a teenager, but he's much more awkward once he steps into his hero shoes. His black friend, the satyr, provides comic relief well, but seems like a much more generic character when he shows Percy around in the beginning. And the hot chick is just awful. Truly, truly terrible. I don't know where they found her, but wow, I think Miley Cyrus would have played that role better. The adult actors hold their roles much more firmly than the kids. Boromir--er, Sean Bean--is a great Zeus, and Uma Thurman really shines as Medusa, although I fear that even her scene would have benefited from some better writing.
Really, The Lightning Thief has some good things going for it: some good humor, an interesting concept, decent acting, and even some decent cinematography and special effects in the climactic ending. All these good moments are brought down by a very poor script, lackluster directing, and some very awkward transitions and explanations. I'll say this one had potential, and there is certainly some fun to be had for kids and adults, but overall this could have and should have been a much better film.
Caius's rating: 2.5 stars
Alright, alright. I'm actually not one of those people who will gripe about the story's likenesses to Harry Potter, because I think they're really just characteristics of this particular subgenre of young adult fantasy, rather than actual Potter rip-offs. But seriously, The Lightning Thief (film) feels very much like Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (film). I think we have Mr. Columbus to thank for that.
So here's the rest of the story in a nutshell, for real this time. Once he's at Half-Blood Camp, Percy meets a hot chick (an adjective which I would debate with Mr. Jackson in this case) and discovers that his black friend is really his guardian satyr. Once he is informed that Zeus's treasured lightning bolt has been stolen and Hades has stolen his mom, he decides to embark on an epic quest across the USA to get to Hades and rescue his mom, instead of taking the advice of Pierce Brosnan. The hot chick and black friend catch him in the act and decide to tag along. Along the way he meets several mythical figures and escapes several challenges.
So far so good, right? The problem isn't so much in the concept; it's in the plot progression. Too many transitions leave plotholes that we're supposed to just go with. Why on Earth do they still care about the time limit to get the lightning bolt when they've abandoned that quest entirely to go to Hades instead? Oh, I guess they must be connected somehow, even though the characters don't know it. Hmmmmm. Some of these plotholes can be filled with a sentence or two, but, well, they should have been. Others are just meant to go over our heads. Worse than that are some of the character motivations that have a nasty tendency to be conveniently explained in a brief bit of dialogue, a trend that has become sadly typical of young adult fantasy movie adaptations. "Why did you just do that?" "Oh, for this reason." "...Oh, okay. (moves along)." And this happens again and again. It's very weak storytelling if you ask me, and I'm guessing it stems from a poor attempt to cram as many of the events of the book into the film as possible while fitting it into 2 hours. But I know from seeing good adaptations that it can be done much better than this.
The acting is quite a mixed bag. Percy himself is very good in the beginning at acting like a teenager, but he's much more awkward once he steps into his hero shoes. His black friend, the satyr, provides comic relief well, but seems like a much more generic character when he shows Percy around in the beginning. And the hot chick is just awful. Truly, truly terrible. I don't know where they found her, but wow, I think Miley Cyrus would have played that role better. The adult actors hold their roles much more firmly than the kids. Boromir--er, Sean Bean--is a great Zeus, and Uma Thurman really shines as Medusa, although I fear that even her scene would have benefited from some better writing.
Really, The Lightning Thief has some good things going for it: some good humor, an interesting concept, decent acting, and even some decent cinematography and special effects in the climactic ending. All these good moments are brought down by a very poor script, lackluster directing, and some very awkward transitions and explanations. I'll say this one had potential, and there is certainly some fun to be had for kids and adults, but overall this could have and should have been a much better film.
Caius's rating: 2.5 stars
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
2012 Review
2012 is 2009's big disaster movie. And what a disaster it is indeed! We thought with a budget as big as this movie had, they could have made something more than simple genre film. We were wrong. How long do we have before this disaster hits theaters? (long pause) It's already here...
If you feel like you've heard that one before, you're going to hear it again.Can you think of another disaster movie cliche? You'll hear that again too, I guarantee it. 2012 clings like glue to the established disaster formula, even more so than other recent films in the genre like The Day After Tomorrow. Pick any part of this film and you've seen it before. The lack of any originality whatsoever is my biggest gripe with 2012.
But wait, there's more. It seems like they had to try really hard to make this movie long so it just might feel epic. The first half or more of the movie involves people running away from CRUMBLING BUILDINGS! And then, they have to run away from a TIDAL WAVE!!! And then, they have to run away from FIREBALLS!!!!!! (I shit you not). It all just goes on and on; there's no real increase in tension. In fact, there's really not much excitement at all through most of it. The best scene in the whole thing is the one shown in the trailers when they run away from cracks in the highway as they drive through it in a limo. Their survival with everything falling apart inches away from the car is nothing short of impossible.
While we're on the subject of impossible, the film actually doesn't even do a very good job of explaining why the world is ending. It gives you a brief rundown of how it might work according to a crazy man in the woods, and that's about it. From there it just goes. It does mention the Mayans and the lining up of the planets and such, but none of that seems to matter; it actually has to do with unusual solar activity, which seems to imply that there was no reason that this had to happen in 2012 as it was predicted.
The film makes an attempt at being very emotional with everything. 'Oh no, my friend was just hit by a tidal wave (sob).' I have to give it credit for trying because a lot of disaster movies make it seems like the main characters don't really care that much, but with the way it's presented in this one, it just feels way overdone. No sale.
I can tell by the box office numbers that it's going to do me no good to discourage people from seeing 2012. To its credit, the special effects are good, and if you tend to enjoy watching things fall apart on the big screen, then you will get your money's worth from 2012. Just don't expect anything more than that. This is a genre flick if ever there was one, and it's bad. Really bad.
Caius's rating: 1 star
If you feel like you've heard that one before, you're going to hear it again.Can you think of another disaster movie cliche? You'll hear that again too, I guarantee it. 2012 clings like glue to the established disaster formula, even more so than other recent films in the genre like The Day After Tomorrow. Pick any part of this film and you've seen it before. The lack of any originality whatsoever is my biggest gripe with 2012.
But wait, there's more. It seems like they had to try really hard to make this movie long so it just might feel epic. The first half or more of the movie involves people running away from CRUMBLING BUILDINGS! And then, they have to run away from a TIDAL WAVE!!! And then, they have to run away from FIREBALLS!!!!!! (I shit you not). It all just goes on and on; there's no real increase in tension. In fact, there's really not much excitement at all through most of it. The best scene in the whole thing is the one shown in the trailers when they run away from cracks in the highway as they drive through it in a limo. Their survival with everything falling apart inches away from the car is nothing short of impossible.
While we're on the subject of impossible, the film actually doesn't even do a very good job of explaining why the world is ending. It gives you a brief rundown of how it might work according to a crazy man in the woods, and that's about it. From there it just goes. It does mention the Mayans and the lining up of the planets and such, but none of that seems to matter; it actually has to do with unusual solar activity, which seems to imply that there was no reason that this had to happen in 2012 as it was predicted.
The film makes an attempt at being very emotional with everything. 'Oh no, my friend was just hit by a tidal wave (sob).' I have to give it credit for trying because a lot of disaster movies make it seems like the main characters don't really care that much, but with the way it's presented in this one, it just feels way overdone. No sale.
I can tell by the box office numbers that it's going to do me no good to discourage people from seeing 2012. To its credit, the special effects are good, and if you tend to enjoy watching things fall apart on the big screen, then you will get your money's worth from 2012. Just don't expect anything more than that. This is a genre flick if ever there was one, and it's bad. Really bad.
Caius's rating: 1 star
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Mesh: A Perfect Solution review
The latest album from Mesh is, as expected, something special in the world of electro-rock. With few exceptions, A Perfect Solution takes everything that was great about We Collide and takes it up a notch. I think this is the band's heaviest album by a long shot. The one thing sacrificed is the level of variation between tracks that the last album had, but A Perfect Solution makes up for it in the quality of these 11 songs.
"If We Stay Here" was the perfect choice to open the album. It's heavy, catchy, and dark. They seem to be channeling Depeche Mode even more than usual in this one, which is not a bad thing. I think it would also be a great choice for a single down the road.
The leading single, of course, is "Only Better," which is one of the most dynamic and melodic songs on the album. You'll hear me say this a lot in this review, but I really think this was the best choice for a single; it seems the band made some very careful choices in the organization of this album and I think it really pays off. "Only Better" is also one of the most beautifully and fully produced songs I've heard in a while. The odd thing about the album version is that after the song fades out, we get an instrumental outro, in the vain of Depeche Mode's "Enjoy the Silence" from Violator. Later on, several of the other songs do this. Luckily, these outros are still musically interesting, so I don't mind them, but some people in the iPod generation might be slightly annoyed at these attachments which are not really a part of the song itself.
"Everything I Made" gives a synth counter-melody like I've come to love, similar to the last album's "Step By Step." Again with the organization, I can't think of any other song that would have been a better choice to follow "Only Better."
The following songs are all great, heavy tunes similar in style. My only complaint is that there could be more variation between them. We have a little bit, with the 12/8 "Want You," the soaring melody of "How Long," and the (slightly) gentler tone of "Is It So Hard," but compared with the last album, which had everything from "Crash" to "Room with a View" to "The World's a Big Place," A Perfect Solution just seems to have more of a sameness to it.
This might be more of a problem for me on a weaker album, but this one is about as strong as they come (indie or otherwise, in my opinion). The similarity of some of the songs might be annoying to some, but I say, 'If it ain't broke, who gives a fuck?' Also, just because they sound similar in style doesn't mean they all sound like the same song; they don't. They're just so well-written and beautifully produced that I can't recommend this album enough. If you like electro, or even if you just like rock, do yourself a favor and give A Perfect Solution a look. Muchos kudos to Mesh for what is quite possibly their best album yet.
Caius's rating: 4.5 stars
"If We Stay Here" was the perfect choice to open the album. It's heavy, catchy, and dark. They seem to be channeling Depeche Mode even more than usual in this one, which is not a bad thing. I think it would also be a great choice for a single down the road.
The leading single, of course, is "Only Better," which is one of the most dynamic and melodic songs on the album. You'll hear me say this a lot in this review, but I really think this was the best choice for a single; it seems the band made some very careful choices in the organization of this album and I think it really pays off. "Only Better" is also one of the most beautifully and fully produced songs I've heard in a while. The odd thing about the album version is that after the song fades out, we get an instrumental outro, in the vain of Depeche Mode's "Enjoy the Silence" from Violator. Later on, several of the other songs do this. Luckily, these outros are still musically interesting, so I don't mind them, but some people in the iPod generation might be slightly annoyed at these attachments which are not really a part of the song itself.
"Everything I Made" gives a synth counter-melody like I've come to love, similar to the last album's "Step By Step." Again with the organization, I can't think of any other song that would have been a better choice to follow "Only Better."
The following songs are all great, heavy tunes similar in style. My only complaint is that there could be more variation between them. We have a little bit, with the 12/8 "Want You," the soaring melody of "How Long," and the (slightly) gentler tone of "Is It So Hard," but compared with the last album, which had everything from "Crash" to "Room with a View" to "The World's a Big Place," A Perfect Solution just seems to have more of a sameness to it.
This might be more of a problem for me on a weaker album, but this one is about as strong as they come (indie or otherwise, in my opinion). The similarity of some of the songs might be annoying to some, but I say, 'If it ain't broke, who gives a fuck?' Also, just because they sound similar in style doesn't mean they all sound like the same song; they don't. They're just so well-written and beautifully produced that I can't recommend this album enough. If you like electro, or even if you just like rock, do yourself a favor and give A Perfect Solution a look. Muchos kudos to Mesh for what is quite possibly their best album yet.
Caius's rating: 4.5 stars
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Paranormal Activity Review
Ah, the joys of October horror movies. This is my review of The Blair Witch Project 2 -- er, I mean, Paranormal Activity.
To make up for a lack of information from the previews, this is another movie shot from a "real" perspective, similar to The Blair Witch Project and more recently, Cloverfield. In this case, we (the audience) are meant to believe that these events actually occurred, which for some viewers will be the main source of horror in it. Sorry if you take that as a spoiler, but I don't think it's inappropriate to acknowledge the fact that this is a movie; it does have a director, and actors who have gone on to do other movies since (knowledge which might have been useful to the adult male in the front row of my screening who at one point whimpered, "This shit is real!"). But for the sake of its realism, Paranormal Activity (PA) has no credits and opens simply with the line "Paramount Pictures would like to thank the families of [character names]." For the rest of the film, we see only footage shot from a camera that the main character bought to document the weird things that have been going on in his house.
His girlfriend, who is reluctant about trying to film these events, has been haunted by some sort of demonic spirit. She is desperate to have it dealt with, presumably through exorcism, but her boyfriend disagrees and insists on filming the events first and trying to thwart the demon's plotting on his own. As the days pass, creepy things start to happen, and the demon's power seems to increase as Micah and Katie's relationship becomes increasingly tense.
During the day, we are given scenes of Micah carrying the camera around and mostly talking to Katie about everything that's going on. This is when all character development takes place, and we can see the progression of the relationship. During the night, Micah places the camera on a tripod so it can monitor anything odd that occurs in the room while they sleep. And yes, odd things do occur. I don't want to spoil any of them (okay, just an early one below, which I'll mark) for reasons I'll explain in a moment, but these occurances are the greatest strength of this film.
It's difficult to explain why these random things are so terrifying to audiences (the cause for many good reviews of PA), but I'm going to do it anyway. Imagine yourself sitting in a movie theater with a crowd of people. The scene is in the bedroom at night. The camera is fixed. It will not move no matter what happens, and it will focus on nothing in particular. *Mild Spoiler* An indicator in the lower right corner of the screen lets you know what time it is. The video fastforwards, and the timer flies through the hours. It stops at 2:00 AM and proceeds at normal time. This is when you know something is about to happen. You wait five seconds... nothing happens. Ten... Micah rolls over in bed. Fifteen.... the bedroom door slowly swings back and forth *End Spoiler*.
That's why this movie works. All the terror is in the anticipation of what's about to happen, and in a few cases, the shock of what actually does happen, assuming you find it shocking of course. To its credit, this is effective, and I admit that this is one of the creepiest movies I've seen. However, the biggest disadvantage of doing it this way is that it makes it almost worthless to see the movie more than once (and the main reason I don't want to spoil anything significant). Once you know what happens, you're done; it will never affect you the same way again as it does the first time, when you're just waiting, scanning the screen, watching for something to move or something out of place, or just something. My point here is that this movie succeeds in toying with your attention and building huge amounts of anticipation, but it fails in delivering anything horrific (or even interesting) enough to watch more than once.
The other thing I didn't like about PA was the daytime segments. The relationship between Micah and Katie is realistic enough, but after a while, it just doesn't seem like it's been worth your time to watch (that is, aside from the nighttime segments). Micah provides some good humor for the first few days, Katie argues with him over whether he should use a Ouija board to communicate with the spirit, and then after a while it just goes on and on and all I wanted to do was watch an endless nighttime segment of crazy shit happening in the bedroom for the rest of the movie.
But don't let that stop you. Really. Paranormal Activity is far from a bad film. In fact, it's one of the creepiest I've ever seen. I just can't imagine that you'd want to watch it again after the first time. I also think this is one that would be an entirely different experience on DVD. But if you really don't want to fork over the money to see it in theaters, at least do yourself the favor of watching it alone (to avoid friends laughing or otherwise spoiling the mood) and in the dark. You might lose a bit of sleep over it, but at least you can say you got the full effect.
Caius's rating: 3 stars
To make up for a lack of information from the previews, this is another movie shot from a "real" perspective, similar to The Blair Witch Project and more recently, Cloverfield. In this case, we (the audience) are meant to believe that these events actually occurred, which for some viewers will be the main source of horror in it. Sorry if you take that as a spoiler, but I don't think it's inappropriate to acknowledge the fact that this is a movie; it does have a director, and actors who have gone on to do other movies since (knowledge which might have been useful to the adult male in the front row of my screening who at one point whimpered, "This shit is real!"). But for the sake of its realism, Paranormal Activity (PA) has no credits and opens simply with the line "Paramount Pictures would like to thank the families of [character names]." For the rest of the film, we see only footage shot from a camera that the main character bought to document the weird things that have been going on in his house.
His girlfriend, who is reluctant about trying to film these events, has been haunted by some sort of demonic spirit. She is desperate to have it dealt with, presumably through exorcism, but her boyfriend disagrees and insists on filming the events first and trying to thwart the demon's plotting on his own. As the days pass, creepy things start to happen, and the demon's power seems to increase as Micah and Katie's relationship becomes increasingly tense.
During the day, we are given scenes of Micah carrying the camera around and mostly talking to Katie about everything that's going on. This is when all character development takes place, and we can see the progression of the relationship. During the night, Micah places the camera on a tripod so it can monitor anything odd that occurs in the room while they sleep. And yes, odd things do occur. I don't want to spoil any of them (okay, just an early one below, which I'll mark) for reasons I'll explain in a moment, but these occurances are the greatest strength of this film.
It's difficult to explain why these random things are so terrifying to audiences (the cause for many good reviews of PA), but I'm going to do it anyway. Imagine yourself sitting in a movie theater with a crowd of people. The scene is in the bedroom at night. The camera is fixed. It will not move no matter what happens, and it will focus on nothing in particular. *Mild Spoiler* An indicator in the lower right corner of the screen lets you know what time it is. The video fastforwards, and the timer flies through the hours. It stops at 2:00 AM and proceeds at normal time. This is when you know something is about to happen. You wait five seconds... nothing happens. Ten... Micah rolls over in bed. Fifteen.... the bedroom door slowly swings back and forth *End Spoiler*.
That's why this movie works. All the terror is in the anticipation of what's about to happen, and in a few cases, the shock of what actually does happen, assuming you find it shocking of course. To its credit, this is effective, and I admit that this is one of the creepiest movies I've seen. However, the biggest disadvantage of doing it this way is that it makes it almost worthless to see the movie more than once (and the main reason I don't want to spoil anything significant). Once you know what happens, you're done; it will never affect you the same way again as it does the first time, when you're just waiting, scanning the screen, watching for something to move or something out of place, or just something. My point here is that this movie succeeds in toying with your attention and building huge amounts of anticipation, but it fails in delivering anything horrific (or even interesting) enough to watch more than once.
The other thing I didn't like about PA was the daytime segments. The relationship between Micah and Katie is realistic enough, but after a while, it just doesn't seem like it's been worth your time to watch (that is, aside from the nighttime segments). Micah provides some good humor for the first few days, Katie argues with him over whether he should use a Ouija board to communicate with the spirit, and then after a while it just goes on and on and all I wanted to do was watch an endless nighttime segment of crazy shit happening in the bedroom for the rest of the movie.
But don't let that stop you. Really. Paranormal Activity is far from a bad film. In fact, it's one of the creepiest I've ever seen. I just can't imagine that you'd want to watch it again after the first time. I also think this is one that would be an entirely different experience on DVD. But if you really don't want to fork over the money to see it in theaters, at least do yourself the favor of watching it alone (to avoid friends laughing or otherwise spoiling the mood) and in the dark. You might lose a bit of sleep over it, but at least you can say you got the full effect.
Caius's rating: 3 stars
Saturday, August 29, 2009
The Final Destination review
Happy Horror Movie Season to all! This is my review of Final Destination 4, er, I mean, The Final Destination, which is a completely different title from Final Destination.
So let's get that cleared up right away. There's nothing final about this iteration in the franchise. There was no reason to call it The Final Destination, except perhaps to convince people that they might as well see it if it's going to be the last one. Well, Death only knows if this is really the last one.
To no one's surprise, this movie is essentially identical to the previous three. The style, the story, and the characters have no significant differences in any Final Destination (FD) movie. So why bother making more? Well, the true answer is that as long as they can think of ways to kill people, people will fork over their money to see it.
The supposed big draw of FD4 is that it's in 3-D. This was my first experience seeing a movie in 3-D, and to be honest, it was a lot better than I expected. Aside from the obvious gimmick, the 3-D effect adds noticeable depth to the scenes. I am surprised to say that I think putting it in 3-D was worthwhile. My only complaint is that it's clear that some effects were done specifically to take advantage of the effect, rather than for any purpose within the story. Some of the kills would have been more effective if it didn't seem like this character was killed in this way just to show a 3-D view of the gore. On the other hand, there are a few moments where the added depth really does add something worthwhile to the experience. A good example is the car wash scene shown in the trailers. The scene's depth really gives an improved feeling of being trapped. In future films, this effect has the potential to create a disturbing realism to such scenes.
Now, let's talk about the movie itself. FD4 is the most emotional film in the franchise. I say this as a compliment to it, but unfortunately, it isn't saying much. As usual, there's never a strong sense of the true terror of death looming over you, nor the agony of watching and waiting for someone you love to be killed in an imminent freak accident. Even so, this one does have a few emotional moments that add some much-needed flavor to the series. Let's hope they can take this much further in Final Destination 5: Another Final Destination.
But of course, people only go to these movies to see people die in the most clever ways possible. The kills in this movie are a mixed bag of cringe-inducing, funny, and just ridiculous. Some of them don't seem to know if they're supposed to be funny or disturbing. I recall a few times when we were shown a rather disturbing scene, which was immediately followed by something humorous. Mixing humor and horror is nothing new to the FD series, but it's too abrupt in a few cases to be effective.
FD4 doesn't have the most clever kills in the series, but some of them are fun to watch, assuming you're into that sort of thing.
I applaud this movie for keeping to the style without being horrible after four movies, and for the few innovations, most notably the (mostly) good use of the 3-D technology. The downside, which I think is huge, is that it still sticks too strongly to the formula set up in the original FD. The characters, story, story structure, deaths, and just about everything else are all the same. If this franchise is to continue, it needs some significant changes, if only to make each installment different from the last. It can stagnate at a decent level for as long as the studio lets it, but it has the potential to be much better. But of course, if you found that you enjoyed all three of the others, as I did, then you will enjoy FD4 just as much and for all the same reasons, as I did.
Caius's rating: 2 stars
So let's get that cleared up right away. There's nothing final about this iteration in the franchise. There was no reason to call it The Final Destination, except perhaps to convince people that they might as well see it if it's going to be the last one. Well, Death only knows if this is really the last one.
To no one's surprise, this movie is essentially identical to the previous three. The style, the story, and the characters have no significant differences in any Final Destination (FD) movie. So why bother making more? Well, the true answer is that as long as they can think of ways to kill people, people will fork over their money to see it.
The supposed big draw of FD4 is that it's in 3-D. This was my first experience seeing a movie in 3-D, and to be honest, it was a lot better than I expected. Aside from the obvious gimmick, the 3-D effect adds noticeable depth to the scenes. I am surprised to say that I think putting it in 3-D was worthwhile. My only complaint is that it's clear that some effects were done specifically to take advantage of the effect, rather than for any purpose within the story. Some of the kills would have been more effective if it didn't seem like this character was killed in this way just to show a 3-D view of the gore. On the other hand, there are a few moments where the added depth really does add something worthwhile to the experience. A good example is the car wash scene shown in the trailers. The scene's depth really gives an improved feeling of being trapped. In future films, this effect has the potential to create a disturbing realism to such scenes.
Now, let's talk about the movie itself. FD4 is the most emotional film in the franchise. I say this as a compliment to it, but unfortunately, it isn't saying much. As usual, there's never a strong sense of the true terror of death looming over you, nor the agony of watching and waiting for someone you love to be killed in an imminent freak accident. Even so, this one does have a few emotional moments that add some much-needed flavor to the series. Let's hope they can take this much further in Final Destination 5: Another Final Destination.
But of course, people only go to these movies to see people die in the most clever ways possible. The kills in this movie are a mixed bag of cringe-inducing, funny, and just ridiculous. Some of them don't seem to know if they're supposed to be funny or disturbing. I recall a few times when we were shown a rather disturbing scene, which was immediately followed by something humorous. Mixing humor and horror is nothing new to the FD series, but it's too abrupt in a few cases to be effective.
FD4 doesn't have the most clever kills in the series, but some of them are fun to watch, assuming you're into that sort of thing.
I applaud this movie for keeping to the style without being horrible after four movies, and for the few innovations, most notably the (mostly) good use of the 3-D technology. The downside, which I think is huge, is that it still sticks too strongly to the formula set up in the original FD. The characters, story, story structure, deaths, and just about everything else are all the same. If this franchise is to continue, it needs some significant changes, if only to make each installment different from the last. It can stagnate at a decent level for as long as the studio lets it, but it has the potential to be much better. But of course, if you found that you enjoyed all three of the others, as I did, then you will enjoy FD4 just as much and for all the same reasons, as I did.
Caius's rating: 2 stars
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)