Films that should have been great, but were not.
Dreamcatcher
Why it should have been great:
It starred Morgan Freeman, Thomas Jane, Tom Sizemore, Damian Lewis, Jason Lee, Timothy Olyphant and Donnie Wahlberg. It was based on a bestselling Stephen King novel, and was adapted by none other than William Goldman. It also had the benefit of being directed by Lawrence Kasdan.
Why it wasn't:
There was a lot of source material to work through, and rather than trying to condense the story into a more manageable form, Goldman instead basically wrote a bare-bones outline. Sure, it covered the key points, but it sacrificed all the depth. Lewis and Wahlberg (both fresh from the amazing Band of Brothers miniseries) are the only actors who appear to be trying. Sizemore somehow manages to put no energy into his role (did he not realize that he's Tom Sizemore?), Jane is flat, Lee and Olyphant just play themselves, and most shockingly, Freeman is atrocious. Morgan Freeman has been in a lot of bad movies, but he is always on top of his game. This is the single instance where I will say Freeman gives a poor performance. He's just bad. Kasdan doesn't do anything obviously wrong, but the film's look is unimaginative and rather bland.
Hannibal
Why it should have been great:
No halfway intelligent person ever thought this was going to be better than its predecessor. But with the talent this project attracted, there was a great chance that the movie would be successful in its own right. The novel was weak source material, but the screenplay was being adapted by the David Mamet. Anthony Hopkins was returning to his Oscar-winning role, and while Jonathan Demme and Jodie Foster were not returning, one could certainly find much worse replacements than Ridley Scott (coming off his Oscar for Gladiator) and Julianne Moore. Add in supporting performances from Gary Oldman, Ray Liotta and Giancarlo Gianni, and there was certainly a lot of hope for this film.
Why it wasn't:
Of all the things that could have possibly gone wrong, who in their right mind would ever guess that the film's biggest problems would come from Hopkins? He flies straight past scene-chewing and jumps headlong into self-parody. Sure, Mamet's lazy adaptation in no way improves upon the dreadful novel (which also made Hannibal Lector into an evil cartoon), but you can hardly blame the writer for what was clearly a conscious acting choice. And it's such a pity, because Scott and the rest of the actors are bringing their A-game. Scott's direction is probably more haunting than Demme's. Moore proves up to the challenge of filling Foster's shoes, Oldman is always good, and Liotta plays an arrogant asshole in the way that only Liotta can. Even taking into account Mamet's quick-paycheck script, the film would have been decent if Hopkins wasn't running around like a demented clown, dragging the whole project down.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Quick rundown
I've watched quite a few terrible direct-to-DVD movies lately. None of these deserve more than a few words of contempt, and a couple don't even deserve that much (though that is what I will give them, because I am a generous person).
Rise: Blood Hunter
Yes, Lucy Lieu is topless. As are a couple of not-famous people. Also, Lieu makes out with Carla Gugino (though it's not nearly as good as it could have been). Everything else looks like a bad copy of Underworld, only without the werewolves and featuring just the pseudo-Goth vampires. Let me write that again: Rise: Blood Hunter is like a bad copy of Underworld. Anyone with any kind of half-respectable cinematic taste should realize exactly what's implied by that summation. And why is Michael Chiklis' agent so incompetent?
Flight of the Dead
Remember what a rousing success Snakes On a Plane was? Well, now they made it with zombies. It's even worse than it sounds.
Night of the Living Dead 3D
Thank the gods that I only had to watch it in 2D. If there had been an extra dimension to contend with, I might not be alive today to warn others of this film. Even the topless "hot chick" was not enjoyable. Not even Sid Haig, who typically brings joy to every movie frame he graces, could be anything but boring and pointless.
Return to House on Haunted Hill
There should be a "the" between "to" and "House" in the film's title. Apparently the abundantly talented filmmakers overlooked that little detail while they were busy destroying all that was good in the world. It takes a lot, and I do mean a LOT, to make me miss the presence of Chris Kattan. Congratulations Warner Bros. and Dark Castle, you've allowed me to hit a new milestone.
White Noise 2: The Light
Because of course when an educated accountant looks at the runaway success that was White Noise (the film that launched Michael Keaton back into the stratosphere of Hollywood's A-list elite, resulting in the long list of starring roles in high-profile films that you've certainly been aware of over the last 2 years), the first financially-responsible thought is: sequel. And like the dimwitted sucker I am, I was stupid enough to hold out hope for this movie. Nathan Fillion and Katee Sackoff in the same film? Capt. Malcolm Reynolds (which I have a cat named after ::sigh::) AND Starbuck?! My fanboy heart was aflutter. Not so much now that I've seen the movie. I'll give the movie this much: it was better than White Noise. But that's not exactly a compliment, is it?
Rise: Blood Hunter
Yes, Lucy Lieu is topless. As are a couple of not-famous people. Also, Lieu makes out with Carla Gugino (though it's not nearly as good as it could have been). Everything else looks like a bad copy of Underworld, only without the werewolves and featuring just the pseudo-Goth vampires. Let me write that again: Rise: Blood Hunter is like a bad copy of Underworld. Anyone with any kind of half-respectable cinematic taste should realize exactly what's implied by that summation. And why is Michael Chiklis' agent so incompetent?
Flight of the Dead
Remember what a rousing success Snakes On a Plane was? Well, now they made it with zombies. It's even worse than it sounds.
Night of the Living Dead 3D
Thank the gods that I only had to watch it in 2D. If there had been an extra dimension to contend with, I might not be alive today to warn others of this film. Even the topless "hot chick" was not enjoyable. Not even Sid Haig, who typically brings joy to every movie frame he graces, could be anything but boring and pointless.
Return to House on Haunted Hill
There should be a "the" between "to" and "House" in the film's title. Apparently the abundantly talented filmmakers overlooked that little detail while they were busy destroying all that was good in the world. It takes a lot, and I do mean a LOT, to make me miss the presence of Chris Kattan. Congratulations Warner Bros. and Dark Castle, you've allowed me to hit a new milestone.
White Noise 2: The Light
Because of course when an educated accountant looks at the runaway success that was White Noise (the film that launched Michael Keaton back into the stratosphere of Hollywood's A-list elite, resulting in the long list of starring roles in high-profile films that you've certainly been aware of over the last 2 years), the first financially-responsible thought is: sequel. And like the dimwitted sucker I am, I was stupid enough to hold out hope for this movie. Nathan Fillion and Katee Sackoff in the same film? Capt. Malcolm Reynolds (which I have a cat named after ::sigh::) AND Starbuck?! My fanboy heart was aflutter. Not so much now that I've seen the movie. I'll give the movie this much: it was better than White Noise. But that's not exactly a compliment, is it?
Monday, October 22, 2007
Altered
I have to write about this movie. It received no publicity, and every synopsis I've ever read of this film makes it seem like low-rent, b-grade horror movie. Nothing could be further from the truth. "Altered" is a brilliant chamber piece about being caught in a frightening situation from which there are no safe exits. And I fear the film will always be discredited and dismissed because the main conflict revolved around the presence of....well, a killer alien. And to be upfront, one of the film's few flaws is that the alien does look like it came straight from a Roger Corman movie. But in fairness to the film, it had a limited budget and creature effects can only look so good when you're trying to create them on the cheap.
The film focuses mainly on the characters of Wyatt, Duke, Otis and Cody. Years ago, Duke, Otis, Wyatt, and Cody's brother Tommy were abducted by aliens. Duke and Otis were released after short while, but Wyatt and Tommy were held much longer. Eventually, Wyatt is returned, and informs the others that Tommy has died. The nature of Tommy's death is known only to Wyatt, who refuses to elaborate. This is all told through present-day dialog with no cheesy scenes aboard a spaceship.
About 10 years have passed since the abduction. Naturally, no one has ever believed their story about abduction. Wyatt lives in seclusion, militia-style. He keeps a cache of weapons, all his doors have multiple locks, and he even has locks on all his kitchen cabinets and his refrigerator. Duke and Otis have been setting traps in the woods where they were abducted, trying to catch an alien to prove that they are not lying. The hunt is not taken very seriously, and is mostly an excuse to hang out in the woods and drink beer. Cody is now part of the hunt, and wants vengeance for his brother. Cody is a class-A fuck-up, and when Tommy went missing it was assumed by everyone (including their parents) that Cody had murdered his brother. Behind his anger and brashness (and sweet jesus, he is an unlikeable character), he actually has the most sympathetic motivation: he just wants his dad to stop looking at him like a murderer. When the film opens, the unthinkable has happened: an alien has stepped into a bear trap. The impulsive Cody immediately wants to kill it, but Duke (as the unofficial leader of this group), realizes that they are in over their heads, so they tie up the alien and bring it to Wyatt's house. Wyatt, the smartest of the group, reluctantly allows them inside. The rest of the movie takes place within 2 rooms of Wyatt's house.
The central dilemma is a doozy. The captured alien is constantly trying to break free, with increasingly deadly consequences. Keeping the creature subdued is putting them in great risk, but it will kill them all if released. On the other hand, if they kill the alien, the rest of the alien's race will see humans as a threat, the consequences of which are unfathomable (but likely involve a lot of dead humans). And while this may still sound like typical b-movie fare, the bulk of the movie is dialog-based rather than action or gore (not that it lacks either of those). Wyatt is the smartest, and knows the alien must stay alive. But Wyatt is still secretive about what happened aboard the spaceship after the others were released, so the others wonder if they can trust him. Cody is a violent idiot, Otis is a coward, and though Duke is well-intentioned, he is barely smarter than Cody (but at least Duke realizes it). There is also the presence of Hope, Wyatt's live-in girlfriend. Naturally, she is completely in the dark about Wyatt's past, making it difficult for her to accept the current situation.
The situation gets more and more tense. Hope calls the police, dim lights and shadowy objects seem to be moving around in the sky, Cody becomes increasingly psychotic, and the captured alien keeps finding ways to inflict harm on all of them. And when there are plot twists, they come from the directions that you least expect.
I've re-watched this movie several times, and I enjoy it more with each viewing. Don't get me wrong, it's far from the perfect film. But it's so rare to find a horror film where the characters are trying to rationalize their way out of a situation instead of fighting their way out of it (or run screaming away from it). And it's also rare to see a horror film with this much ambition, even if it ultimately gets limited by budget constraints (the acting is much better than your typical indie-horror fare, and serves the movie well, but is still not A-level).
I highly recommend this movie, and I wish more people would stumble upon it.
The film focuses mainly on the characters of Wyatt, Duke, Otis and Cody. Years ago, Duke, Otis, Wyatt, and Cody's brother Tommy were abducted by aliens. Duke and Otis were released after short while, but Wyatt and Tommy were held much longer. Eventually, Wyatt is returned, and informs the others that Tommy has died. The nature of Tommy's death is known only to Wyatt, who refuses to elaborate. This is all told through present-day dialog with no cheesy scenes aboard a spaceship.
About 10 years have passed since the abduction. Naturally, no one has ever believed their story about abduction. Wyatt lives in seclusion, militia-style. He keeps a cache of weapons, all his doors have multiple locks, and he even has locks on all his kitchen cabinets and his refrigerator. Duke and Otis have been setting traps in the woods where they were abducted, trying to catch an alien to prove that they are not lying. The hunt is not taken very seriously, and is mostly an excuse to hang out in the woods and drink beer. Cody is now part of the hunt, and wants vengeance for his brother. Cody is a class-A fuck-up, and when Tommy went missing it was assumed by everyone (including their parents) that Cody had murdered his brother. Behind his anger and brashness (and sweet jesus, he is an unlikeable character), he actually has the most sympathetic motivation: he just wants his dad to stop looking at him like a murderer. When the film opens, the unthinkable has happened: an alien has stepped into a bear trap. The impulsive Cody immediately wants to kill it, but Duke (as the unofficial leader of this group), realizes that they are in over their heads, so they tie up the alien and bring it to Wyatt's house. Wyatt, the smartest of the group, reluctantly allows them inside. The rest of the movie takes place within 2 rooms of Wyatt's house.
The central dilemma is a doozy. The captured alien is constantly trying to break free, with increasingly deadly consequences. Keeping the creature subdued is putting them in great risk, but it will kill them all if released. On the other hand, if they kill the alien, the rest of the alien's race will see humans as a threat, the consequences of which are unfathomable (but likely involve a lot of dead humans). And while this may still sound like typical b-movie fare, the bulk of the movie is dialog-based rather than action or gore (not that it lacks either of those). Wyatt is the smartest, and knows the alien must stay alive. But Wyatt is still secretive about what happened aboard the spaceship after the others were released, so the others wonder if they can trust him. Cody is a violent idiot, Otis is a coward, and though Duke is well-intentioned, he is barely smarter than Cody (but at least Duke realizes it). There is also the presence of Hope, Wyatt's live-in girlfriend. Naturally, she is completely in the dark about Wyatt's past, making it difficult for her to accept the current situation.
The situation gets more and more tense. Hope calls the police, dim lights and shadowy objects seem to be moving around in the sky, Cody becomes increasingly psychotic, and the captured alien keeps finding ways to inflict harm on all of them. And when there are plot twists, they come from the directions that you least expect.
I've re-watched this movie several times, and I enjoy it more with each viewing. Don't get me wrong, it's far from the perfect film. But it's so rare to find a horror film where the characters are trying to rationalize their way out of a situation instead of fighting their way out of it (or run screaming away from it). And it's also rare to see a horror film with this much ambition, even if it ultimately gets limited by budget constraints (the acting is much better than your typical indie-horror fare, and serves the movie well, but is still not A-level).
I highly recommend this movie, and I wish more people would stumble upon it.
3:10 to Yuma
Am I the only one who wasn't at all impressed by this movie?
Not that it was bad, it just wasn't good. It was all very predictable, the performances felt a little too forced, and ending rang completely false. I think people are so desperate for a return to the classic western genre that they will accept any new western as a great film.
I read a great analogy recently that I think accurately describes critics' positive reactions to this film (the analogy was originally being used to describe Star Wars fans' reaction to the new trilogy): A child has dropped his ice cream cone in the sandbox, and has picked the cone back up, and is brushing the sand off while repeating "It's still good" over and over.
Not that it was bad, it just wasn't good. It was all very predictable, the performances felt a little too forced, and ending rang completely false. I think people are so desperate for a return to the classic western genre that they will accept any new western as a great film.
I read a great analogy recently that I think accurately describes critics' positive reactions to this film (the analogy was originally being used to describe Star Wars fans' reaction to the new trilogy): A child has dropped his ice cream cone in the sandbox, and has picked the cone back up, and is brushing the sand off while repeating "It's still good" over and over.
30 Days of Night
I'll admit this upfront: I never really liked the comic. It was beautifully drawn, but the story was disorganized. The art, though pretty, actually did more to muddle the story than to clarify it. But apparently it was hugely popular, and has spawned many sequels (most superior to the original). And as these things go, what becomes popular in the comic world inevitably becomes a movie.
The movie, like the comic, is pretty. Damn pretty. In fact, I'll say that it contains what I believe to be the best overhead-tracking shot in film history (you'll know the one when you see it). It is also blisteringly intense. Things happen fast, and by the end of the film's 111 minutes, it has become an outright exhausting experience. And it's a good thing, because if the film moved any slower, I might start realizing that I don't give a shit about any of the characters. And why should I? It's not like the movie took any time to develop them into a person worth caring for.
As a lifelong fan of horror films, I've had to accept certain truths about my preferred genre. All things being equal, characterization and story will always take a backseat to gore and special effects. I expect this whenever I lay down money for a horror film. When a movie fails to give me decent characters, I am disappointed, but never surprised. The best I can hope for is that the director is competent and the gore is plentiful. By this measure, "30 Days of Night" is a rousing success. In fact, it even goes the extra mile and gives unique twist to the story (which is essentially "Night of the Living Dead," but with vampires in place of zombies), and greatly improves upon the story in the comic. And the acting is better than usual for this type of movie.
I want so badly to love this film, and I did enjoy it immensely. But I just didn't give a damn about what was happening, and so I can't say it was a good movie. If the movie wasn't good, but also isn't bad, I suppose I'll just have to say that it was entertaining.
The movie, like the comic, is pretty. Damn pretty. In fact, I'll say that it contains what I believe to be the best overhead-tracking shot in film history (you'll know the one when you see it). It is also blisteringly intense. Things happen fast, and by the end of the film's 111 minutes, it has become an outright exhausting experience. And it's a good thing, because if the film moved any slower, I might start realizing that I don't give a shit about any of the characters. And why should I? It's not like the movie took any time to develop them into a person worth caring for.
As a lifelong fan of horror films, I've had to accept certain truths about my preferred genre. All things being equal, characterization and story will always take a backseat to gore and special effects. I expect this whenever I lay down money for a horror film. When a movie fails to give me decent characters, I am disappointed, but never surprised. The best I can hope for is that the director is competent and the gore is plentiful. By this measure, "30 Days of Night" is a rousing success. In fact, it even goes the extra mile and gives unique twist to the story (which is essentially "Night of the Living Dead," but with vampires in place of zombies), and greatly improves upon the story in the comic. And the acting is better than usual for this type of movie.
I want so badly to love this film, and I did enjoy it immensely. But I just didn't give a damn about what was happening, and so I can't say it was a good movie. If the movie wasn't good, but also isn't bad, I suppose I'll just have to say that it was entertaining.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
