Premise: Two genetic scientists do what they shouldn't and add human DNA to their experiment.
Stars: Adrien Brody * Sarah Polley * Delphine Chanéac * David Hewlett
Story: Two genetic scientists, Elsa and Clive, are working on projects that may provide medical benefits to people suffering numerous maladies with a genetic basis. They experiment on creating new lifeforms combining genetic traits of several species and, intoxicated by their success, they decide to move to the next level and use human DNA. Unfortunately their program sponsor and their boss want to concentrate on retrieving products from the current creations and do not want to move forward without gaining the support of the shareholders.
The scientists move forward on their own, creating a human hybrid named Dren.
Review: While the technology and attitude is cutting edge, the film is a definite throwback to the moral tale of the first Frankenstein film. While the scientists are human and the hybrid is definitely not - chicken legs, four fingers, eventually wings, and a tail with a venomous stinger - it is the hybrid that earns the sympathy of the viewer. This film is definitely a notch above the typical "mad scientist" flick of the past decade or so (eg. Mimic, Species).
Adrien Brody (Clive) and Sarah Polley (Elsa) - references to the original scientist and his bride from Frankenstein - put in strong performances as the two scientists. Dressed in the trappings of geek culture - T-shirts and jackets, an AMC Pacer for a car, anime posters, etc. - the two scientists are also lovers and are simultaneously dreaming of a better place for themselves, as well as pushing the boundaries of science for the betterment of mankind. There is an ongoing dialogue regarding self-discovery of themselves and a growing realization of the harm they've done to themselves, to their research, and to the new lifeform, named Dren.
Dren really steals the show, as the monster did in Frankenstein. From its first appearance as a defensive lifepod (carrying Dren) to the rabbit-chicken infant, the creature moves from something to be feared and destroyed to an "almost cute" and needing to be examined and protected. As Dren grows, the girl-like appearance draws the viewer in as she is incapable of speech but clearly demonstrates emotions and intelligence. When the secrecy surrounding her is threatened by the scientists' boss (played by David Hewlett, Rodney of Stargate: Atlantis fame), the pair move the child to Elsa's old family farm.
Once there, the film focuses on the emotional development of the now young-adult Dren (Chanéac) and her relationships with her "parents". We can see the frustration on her face as she yearns to be outside the farm, to experience life without being chained or hidden. Yet the film doesn't play on the typical "Why am I not like other people" trope that many other films have used. Dren knows she's different but simply wants to feel sunlight and freedom.
One of the strengths of the film is that as we watch Dren develop through the film, the relationship between Elsa and Clive also changes; additional character traits are shown and their relationship moves from ecstatic scientists reveling in creation (like new parents) to fears over what they have done (for the future, for themselves) to loving Dren as an actual child. The strength of the casting is clearly on display - from Brody's anguished spontaneous attempt to kill Dren, to Polley's just-below-the-surface madness as she tries to control Dren.
There are a few horrific moments in the film that will place the viewer on the edge of their seats, but the slow-burn of the film and the great character development is a great counterweight. While I expected simply another "genetic experiment gone awry" like the earlier films, it was a pleasant surprise to see a true throwback to the classics.
Definitely a great modern take on the classic Frankenstein. Easily recommended.
Overall: Good
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Showing posts with label horror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label horror. Show all posts
Friday, June 4, 2010
Monday, May 31, 2010
Orphan (2009)
Premise: Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgaard get an unexpected surprise when they adopt Esther.
Stars: Vera Farmiga * Peter Sarsgaard * Isabelle Fuhrman
Story: Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgaard portray the Colemans, an American couple dealing with the aftermath of a stillbirth. Kate (Farmiga) has continuing nightmares and John is a little distant. They try to fill this perceived hole in their lives with the adoption of a third child, Esther (Fuhrman), from a local orphanage. Their two living children - Daniel and Max - react differently: Daniel is jealous and unwelcoming, while Max readily takes to having a new sister.
However, Esther has a secret that could threaten them all.
Review: The movie has a solid premise. An adopted child with a secret is a fundamental fear of most adoptive parents. Adoptive parents want to know the child is alright. They want to know the child will adapt well and come to be a loving, contributing member of the family. They also want to know that they are acceptable and loved themselves. However, when secrets are kept in the background, particularly secrets of abuse, murder, violence, etc., then it can turn a dream of having a child into a nightmare.
Orphan begins this way. There is an idyllic beginning with a slightly ominous overtone. But whether that's a natural fear coming to the surface, or something more sinister is debatable. But the premise of uncertainty is quickly removed when a class bully decides to pick on Esther for her way of dress and behaviour - and instead of keeping things hidden, in order to keep the uncertainty and intriguing nature of the child, a quick reveal lets the viewer in on Esther's secret - she's violent and manipulative.
The film brings up several subplots that could have turned this film into a top-notch thriller: John's (Sarsgaard) past infidelity, Kate's bouts with alcoholism, the orphanage's representative Sister Abigail has a violent encounter with Esther - these could all play into the uncertainty and intrigue of Esther's character. Likewise, Esther's background is only briefly referenced - any implication or causation of what made a child into a murderess other than simply stunted growth is thrown out the window. (Should the viewer take the idea that any dwarf is subject to violent tendencies?)
As an example. Kate has cultivated a rose bush that represents the stillborn daughter Jessica. Jessica's ashes fed the bush, so the emotional and psychological tie is there. John tells Esther to express how she feels about Kate. Esther cuts the roses from the bush, enraging Kate. This simplifies Esther; earlier she showed duplicity and manipulation, so why not order roses that look exactly like those of Jessica's rose bush? This would put the psychological onus on Kate, who could - if the story remained true to its premise - be turned into barely clinging onto her sanity.
Instead of building on the fundamental fear that parents have, the film turns into a typical slasher film with psychological overtones. It's a letdown.
Regarding the acting, Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgaard appear bored with the material. Aside from a few moments of intimacy and argument, one could easily replace both actors with any of the OC crowd as the roles do not require a lot of work once the adoption occurs. Fuhrman as Esther, however, really does captivate. While her "Lolita" appearance as she tries to seduce John are disconcerting, her transformation into her "authentic" self as the film wraps really does let Fuhrman appear older than her 12 years. While the film does try to maintain the psychological edge early on, it is again, her turn as Esther that keeps the film from falling apart. The rest of the cast - CCH Pounder as Abigail, the child actors playing Max and Daniel - perform ably.
Overall: Mediocre
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Stars: Vera Farmiga * Peter Sarsgaard * Isabelle Fuhrman
Story: Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgaard portray the Colemans, an American couple dealing with the aftermath of a stillbirth. Kate (Farmiga) has continuing nightmares and John is a little distant. They try to fill this perceived hole in their lives with the adoption of a third child, Esther (Fuhrman), from a local orphanage. Their two living children - Daniel and Max - react differently: Daniel is jealous and unwelcoming, while Max readily takes to having a new sister.
However, Esther has a secret that could threaten them all.
Review: The movie has a solid premise. An adopted child with a secret is a fundamental fear of most adoptive parents. Adoptive parents want to know the child is alright. They want to know the child will adapt well and come to be a loving, contributing member of the family. They also want to know that they are acceptable and loved themselves. However, when secrets are kept in the background, particularly secrets of abuse, murder, violence, etc., then it can turn a dream of having a child into a nightmare.
Orphan begins this way. There is an idyllic beginning with a slightly ominous overtone. But whether that's a natural fear coming to the surface, or something more sinister is debatable. But the premise of uncertainty is quickly removed when a class bully decides to pick on Esther for her way of dress and behaviour - and instead of keeping things hidden, in order to keep the uncertainty and intriguing nature of the child, a quick reveal lets the viewer in on Esther's secret - she's violent and manipulative.
The film brings up several subplots that could have turned this film into a top-notch thriller: John's (Sarsgaard) past infidelity, Kate's bouts with alcoholism, the orphanage's representative Sister Abigail has a violent encounter with Esther - these could all play into the uncertainty and intrigue of Esther's character. Likewise, Esther's background is only briefly referenced - any implication or causation of what made a child into a murderess other than simply stunted growth is thrown out the window. (Should the viewer take the idea that any dwarf is subject to violent tendencies?)
As an example. Kate has cultivated a rose bush that represents the stillborn daughter Jessica. Jessica's ashes fed the bush, so the emotional and psychological tie is there. John tells Esther to express how she feels about Kate. Esther cuts the roses from the bush, enraging Kate. This simplifies Esther; earlier she showed duplicity and manipulation, so why not order roses that look exactly like those of Jessica's rose bush? This would put the psychological onus on Kate, who could - if the story remained true to its premise - be turned into barely clinging onto her sanity.
Instead of building on the fundamental fear that parents have, the film turns into a typical slasher film with psychological overtones. It's a letdown.
Regarding the acting, Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgaard appear bored with the material. Aside from a few moments of intimacy and argument, one could easily replace both actors with any of the OC crowd as the roles do not require a lot of work once the adoption occurs. Fuhrman as Esther, however, really does captivate. While her "Lolita" appearance as she tries to seduce John are disconcerting, her transformation into her "authentic" self as the film wraps really does let Fuhrman appear older than her 12 years. While the film does try to maintain the psychological edge early on, it is again, her turn as Esther that keeps the film from falling apart. The rest of the cast - CCH Pounder as Abigail, the child actors playing Max and Daniel - perform ably.
Overall: Mediocre
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Saw VI (2009)
Premise: The sixth installment of the horror series adds new victims and backstories to the franchise.
Stars: Costas Mandylor * Tobin Bell
Story: Jigsaw and his apprentices are back! This film follows one main victim (Easton) and shows how his story affected that of Jigsaw himself. It also tracks the progress of one of Jigsaw's apprentices (Hoffman) in his efforts to continue Jigsaw's work as well as prevent the discovery of his identity.
Review: John Kramer AKA Jigsaw has been around for six films, even though he died in the third movie. Each installment in the series continues to flesh out John's life prior to becoming Jigsaw as well as introduce new ancillary characters (Easton), bring former characters new life (a presumed dead detective), and expand the motivations and roles of others (Jill Tuck, Amanda).
I honestly don't think I've seen a series where characters that are already dead have as much influence and appearances in the show with the actual living characters unless they are ghosts. And there's nothing supernatural about this film or the series.
Once again, the movie starts out with a twisted test of the desire to live. Again, a central character (this time William Easton, similar to Jeff Denlon in Saw III) must proceed through a series of tests that will determine who lives and who dies. Only this time, instead of tying characters to his desire for revenge, the characters are completely innocent (a couple of people this HMO VP would normally write off as DOA) or are complicit in his schemes to bilk the living of their money while denying care to the dying.
While a lot of sympathy is garnered for a few, the aim of the film is to clearly make the watcher believe that people are complicated, there are no clearly good or evil people. So do you root for the victims? Those willing to force such moral dilemmas upon the protagonist? And then the film throws enough twists and "Gotcha" moments in that there are very few people to identify with, so sympathy is a hard commodity to bargain with.
While points are worth mentioning, and the backstory of John Kramer himself is interesting, the film simply takes a path already followed by earlier films, adds no hero (or villain) to really root for, and loses its audience by the third act.
Overall: Mediocre
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Stars: Costas Mandylor * Tobin Bell
Story: Jigsaw and his apprentices are back! This film follows one main victim (Easton) and shows how his story affected that of Jigsaw himself. It also tracks the progress of one of Jigsaw's apprentices (Hoffman) in his efforts to continue Jigsaw's work as well as prevent the discovery of his identity.
Review: John Kramer AKA Jigsaw has been around for six films, even though he died in the third movie. Each installment in the series continues to flesh out John's life prior to becoming Jigsaw as well as introduce new ancillary characters (Easton), bring former characters new life (a presumed dead detective), and expand the motivations and roles of others (Jill Tuck, Amanda).
I honestly don't think I've seen a series where characters that are already dead have as much influence and appearances in the show with the actual living characters unless they are ghosts. And there's nothing supernatural about this film or the series.
Once again, the movie starts out with a twisted test of the desire to live. Again, a central character (this time William Easton, similar to Jeff Denlon in Saw III) must proceed through a series of tests that will determine who lives and who dies. Only this time, instead of tying characters to his desire for revenge, the characters are completely innocent (a couple of people this HMO VP would normally write off as DOA) or are complicit in his schemes to bilk the living of their money while denying care to the dying.
While a lot of sympathy is garnered for a few, the aim of the film is to clearly make the watcher believe that people are complicated, there are no clearly good or evil people. So do you root for the victims? Those willing to force such moral dilemmas upon the protagonist? And then the film throws enough twists and "Gotcha" moments in that there are very few people to identify with, so sympathy is a hard commodity to bargain with.
While points are worth mentioning, and the backstory of John Kramer himself is interesting, the film simply takes a path already followed by earlier films, adds no hero (or villain) to really root for, and loses its audience by the third act.
Overall: Mediocre
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Friday, May 29, 2009
Drag Me to Hell (2009)
Premise: Young up-and-coming member of modern society pisses off a member of the old country. Demons, possessions, violence, and downright eerie things follow.
Stars: Alison Lohman (Matchstick Men) * Justin Long (the Mac guy) * Dileep Rao
Story: Banker Christine (Lohman) has a nice life with her milquetoast boyfriend (Long) and is working on a promotion. While doing so, she angers a local Gypsy woman (whether she's Gypsy, Hungarian, Roma, or just straight out of the Army of Darkness, you're not sure) who gets her revenge by placing a curse on the banker. Christine now has three days to get rid of the curse, or the demon summoned to avenge the wrong will take her physically to Hell.
Review: Pure Raimi. From the roving cameras to the eerie violins to the rushing winds to the madcap slapstick that occurs, this is vintage Evil Dead material. The film is a classic-style horror film - strange shit all of a sudden starts happening to an otherwise urbane twenty-something who has a limited time to save herself. Lohman does great work with the acting chops, going from sunshiney-goodness to wicked badass and proves that she can carry a genre film. Indeed, Christine could easily be seen as an inheritor of Ash, Bruce Campbell's character in Raimi's Evil Dead films, in her reactions to the weird happenings going on after her encounter with the Gypsy.
(Whether this odd timing pays off as DMtH plays against Terminator: Salvation, Up, and Night at the Museum 2 in terms of bank, I don't know, but hopefully better things are in store for Ms. Lohman. This is easily a film that would do well against the expected Saw-type tripe that will appear this Halloween season.)
Long, Rao and the rest of the cast are merely supporting characters with little to do except carry scenes and dialogue. The film is a basic character-study (what would any twentysomething do to avoid being sent to Hell?) and plot. It moves quickly, going from ominous to threatening, to grotesque to wicked funny to scary. It's driven by the music of genre regular Christopher Young and reminds one of Raimi's horror trilogy - sudden violins, troubling bass, all playing off sound effects designed for gotcha moments and suspense building.
The movie is literally a shock-and-go supernatural horror film designed to get the pulse pounding - even when you are expecting a shock and it comes straight as predicted, I could literally feel my pulse quicken after the moment. Raimi's body of work includes films designed around this - the aforementioned Evil Dead series - and other genre pictures - Darkman, moments in Spider-Man 2 - and allows the director to manipulate the audience in a manner unlike the more subdued A Simple Plan and Spider-Man 1 & 3.
One can easily see this film becoming a member of the Raimi ouvre that appears every Halloween.
Overall: Good
Other Sites: IMDb * Wikipedia * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Stars: Alison Lohman (Matchstick Men) * Justin Long (the Mac guy) * Dileep Rao
Story: Banker Christine (Lohman) has a nice life with her milquetoast boyfriend (Long) and is working on a promotion. While doing so, she angers a local Gypsy woman (whether she's Gypsy, Hungarian, Roma, or just straight out of the Army of Darkness, you're not sure) who gets her revenge by placing a curse on the banker. Christine now has three days to get rid of the curse, or the demon summoned to avenge the wrong will take her physically to Hell.
Review: Pure Raimi. From the roving cameras to the eerie violins to the rushing winds to the madcap slapstick that occurs, this is vintage Evil Dead material. The film is a classic-style horror film - strange shit all of a sudden starts happening to an otherwise urbane twenty-something who has a limited time to save herself. Lohman does great work with the acting chops, going from sunshiney-goodness to wicked badass and proves that she can carry a genre film. Indeed, Christine could easily be seen as an inheritor of Ash, Bruce Campbell's character in Raimi's Evil Dead films, in her reactions to the weird happenings going on after her encounter with the Gypsy.
(Whether this odd timing pays off as DMtH plays against Terminator: Salvation, Up, and Night at the Museum 2 in terms of bank, I don't know, but hopefully better things are in store for Ms. Lohman. This is easily a film that would do well against the expected Saw-type tripe that will appear this Halloween season.)
Long, Rao and the rest of the cast are merely supporting characters with little to do except carry scenes and dialogue. The film is a basic character-study (what would any twentysomething do to avoid being sent to Hell?) and plot. It moves quickly, going from ominous to threatening, to grotesque to wicked funny to scary. It's driven by the music of genre regular Christopher Young and reminds one of Raimi's horror trilogy - sudden violins, troubling bass, all playing off sound effects designed for gotcha moments and suspense building.
The movie is literally a shock-and-go supernatural horror film designed to get the pulse pounding - even when you are expecting a shock and it comes straight as predicted, I could literally feel my pulse quicken after the moment. Raimi's body of work includes films designed around this - the aforementioned Evil Dead series - and other genre pictures - Darkman, moments in Spider-Man 2 - and allows the director to manipulate the audience in a manner unlike the more subdued A Simple Plan and Spider-Man 1 & 3.
One can easily see this film becoming a member of the Raimi ouvre that appears every Halloween.
Overall: Good
Other Sites: IMDb * Wikipedia * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Thursday, July 31, 2008
The Ruins (2008)
Premise: Hot American tourists discover a Mayan ruin with a terrible secret.
Stars: Jonathan Tucker * Jena Malone * Laura Ramsey * Shawn Ashmore * Joe Anderson
Story: Four American tourists in Mexico connect with a few Greeks and a German and learn of an archaeological dig and a set of Mayan ruins. When the German asks them to go with him (to ostensibly locate his missing brother), the Americans and one of the Greeks take off with him to locate the missing.
They discover an isolated ruined temple, covered with thick vegetation. Almost immediately, they are accosted by some natives, who startle the Americans. While they are trying to get the tourists to get away from the ruin, one of the tourists steps on the vegetation, instantly provoking the natives. Mistaking their intentions, the Greek soon ends up dead and the rest are forced onto the ruin. The natives set up a hostile encirclement of the ruin, preventing their escape.
Believing the missing brother and his cohorts are in the temple due to the presence of a tent and the sound of a ringing phone in the temple, the five start investigating the ruin. Mathias (Anderson, the German) descends into the ruin, only to have the rope snap, causing him to break both of his legs. Stacy (Ramsey), goes into the temple to help him, cutting her leg. Both are retrieved. Over the course of the next days, they discover the vegetation is alive, and that it lives on flesh & blood. It is also able to mimic sounds, including the ringing of cell phones.
Review: Following in the vein (ahem) of Hostel, Cabin Fever, Turistas, The Ruins falls somewhere in the middle of the pack of the torture porn genre. The gore is limited to two individuals, and while it's gratuitous in its nature, it's quite unlike the sadism present in the Hostel films. Instead the blood and gore comes from the attempt to prevent septicemia and further infection from the plants.
The acting is pretty typical of the young crowds filling up films and television - all in great shape, displaying lots of eye candy for both male and female watchers. Nothing demands a great stretch of imagination: the attempt at stoicism by the macho Jeff (Texas Chainsaw Massacre's McIntire), the attempt at heroism of Eric (Ashmore of the X-Men franchise), the lots-of-crying-and-screaming of Stacy (Ramsey) and the what-the-hell-is-going-on of Amy (independent film star Malone) - these are all straight out of previous entries in the genre.
Portions of the movie make little sense - having learned that the plants are drawn to people, they leave a bleeding Mathias close to vegetation, away from the four Americans. Is this a statement by the director, or is it just slipshod pretensions of ominous overtones? The tent is surrounded by vegetation but only once do the plants invade it, and that early on - did the plants give up? (I admit I didn't watch the unrated version, maybe there's something of value missing.) The plants pretty quickly grab a dead body, but when Stacy is walking around bleeding profusely, the plants do not move after her.
Lastly, the escape attempt is handled pretty honestly. The only question is that as the main ending is hopeful, it does not address the earlier noticed event of the plants growing on their clothes - as the movie progresses clothes get grungier and slightly greener as presumably spores, seeds or pollen end up on them. A more honest ending would've been that the clothing had to be burned at the least - the alternate ending is more in-line with such thinking.
Overall: Mediocre
Links: IMDb * Wikipedia * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Stars: Jonathan Tucker * Jena Malone * Laura Ramsey * Shawn Ashmore * Joe Anderson
Story: Four American tourists in Mexico connect with a few Greeks and a German and learn of an archaeological dig and a set of Mayan ruins. When the German asks them to go with him (to ostensibly locate his missing brother), the Americans and one of the Greeks take off with him to locate the missing.
They discover an isolated ruined temple, covered with thick vegetation. Almost immediately, they are accosted by some natives, who startle the Americans. While they are trying to get the tourists to get away from the ruin, one of the tourists steps on the vegetation, instantly provoking the natives. Mistaking their intentions, the Greek soon ends up dead and the rest are forced onto the ruin. The natives set up a hostile encirclement of the ruin, preventing their escape.
Believing the missing brother and his cohorts are in the temple due to the presence of a tent and the sound of a ringing phone in the temple, the five start investigating the ruin. Mathias (Anderson, the German) descends into the ruin, only to have the rope snap, causing him to break both of his legs. Stacy (Ramsey), goes into the temple to help him, cutting her leg. Both are retrieved. Over the course of the next days, they discover the vegetation is alive, and that it lives on flesh & blood. It is also able to mimic sounds, including the ringing of cell phones.
Review: Following in the vein (ahem) of Hostel, Cabin Fever, Turistas, The Ruins falls somewhere in the middle of the pack of the torture porn genre. The gore is limited to two individuals, and while it's gratuitous in its nature, it's quite unlike the sadism present in the Hostel films. Instead the blood and gore comes from the attempt to prevent septicemia and further infection from the plants.
The acting is pretty typical of the young crowds filling up films and television - all in great shape, displaying lots of eye candy for both male and female watchers. Nothing demands a great stretch of imagination: the attempt at stoicism by the macho Jeff (Texas Chainsaw Massacre's McIntire), the attempt at heroism of Eric (Ashmore of the X-Men franchise), the lots-of-crying-and-screaming of Stacy (Ramsey) and the what-the-hell-is-going-on of Amy (independent film star Malone) - these are all straight out of previous entries in the genre.
Portions of the movie make little sense - having learned that the plants are drawn to people, they leave a bleeding Mathias close to vegetation, away from the four Americans. Is this a statement by the director, or is it just slipshod pretensions of ominous overtones? The tent is surrounded by vegetation but only once do the plants invade it, and that early on - did the plants give up? (I admit I didn't watch the unrated version, maybe there's something of value missing.) The plants pretty quickly grab a dead body, but when Stacy is walking around bleeding profusely, the plants do not move after her.
Lastly, the escape attempt is handled pretty honestly. The only question is that as the main ending is hopeful, it does not address the earlier noticed event of the plants growing on their clothes - as the movie progresses clothes get grungier and slightly greener as presumably spores, seeds or pollen end up on them. A more honest ending would've been that the clothing had to be burned at the least - the alternate ending is more in-line with such thinking.
Overall: Mediocre
Links: IMDb * Wikipedia * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
The Howling (1981)
Links: IMDb * Wikipedia * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Premise: A reporter uncovers the story of her life when she goes to interview a serial killer.
Directed by: Joe Dante
Stars: Dee Wallace * Christopher Stone * Robert Picardo * Patrick Macnee * Dennis Dugan
Review: Aside from An American Werewolf in London (also 1981) and the seminal Wolf Man this is possibly the best werewolf movie ever made.
Reporter Karen White (Wallace) goes to interview a serial killer, Eddie Quist (Picardo). When she begins the interview Quist begins transforming in front of her - intending to transform and reveal the presence of werewolves. He's shot down by police who respond to her screams. She blanks out the memory and is haunted by nightmares until she counseled by a psychiatrist (Macnee) to go to a spiritual retreat/camp where she can recover. Accompanied by her husband (Stone), she goes to the retreat - unfortunately for her, it's a nest of werewolves.
As she slowly fears she's losing her mind from the odd goings-on at the retreat, her husband is seduced by a local and is turned - as are the only other couple at the retreat that she had befriended. She calls her friends to come and get her out of there after she realizes her husband has been cheating on her. One of her friends is killed by a returned-from-the-dead Quist, but notifies a detective (Dugan) that there are werewolves at the camp and that he should come prepared. As the detective heads to the camp, he takes silver bullets; in escaping the camp several of the werewolves are killed, including Karen's husband.
In a classic closing moment, Karen decides to reveal the presence of werewolves by transforming in front of camera screens.
The transformation effects by f/x master Rick Baker are superb. The acting is not phenomenal by any means, but that's not what you go to watch a werewolf movie for. This movie and American Werewolf set the gold standard by which all other lycanthrope movies are judged - no other film has approached these two since their appearance and the CGI versions of later films - American Werewolf in Paris, Van Helsing, etc. simply cannot compare.
Overall: Good
Premise: A reporter uncovers the story of her life when she goes to interview a serial killer.
Directed by: Joe Dante
Stars: Dee Wallace * Christopher Stone * Robert Picardo * Patrick Macnee * Dennis Dugan
Review: Aside from An American Werewolf in London (also 1981) and the seminal Wolf Man this is possibly the best werewolf movie ever made.
Reporter Karen White (Wallace) goes to interview a serial killer, Eddie Quist (Picardo). When she begins the interview Quist begins transforming in front of her - intending to transform and reveal the presence of werewolves. He's shot down by police who respond to her screams. She blanks out the memory and is haunted by nightmares until she counseled by a psychiatrist (Macnee) to go to a spiritual retreat/camp where she can recover. Accompanied by her husband (Stone), she goes to the retreat - unfortunately for her, it's a nest of werewolves.
As she slowly fears she's losing her mind from the odd goings-on at the retreat, her husband is seduced by a local and is turned - as are the only other couple at the retreat that she had befriended. She calls her friends to come and get her out of there after she realizes her husband has been cheating on her. One of her friends is killed by a returned-from-the-dead Quist, but notifies a detective (Dugan) that there are werewolves at the camp and that he should come prepared. As the detective heads to the camp, he takes silver bullets; in escaping the camp several of the werewolves are killed, including Karen's husband.
In a classic closing moment, Karen decides to reveal the presence of werewolves by transforming in front of camera screens.
The transformation effects by f/x master Rick Baker are superb. The acting is not phenomenal by any means, but that's not what you go to watch a werewolf movie for. This movie and American Werewolf set the gold standard by which all other lycanthrope movies are judged - no other film has approached these two since their appearance and the CGI versions of later films - American Werewolf in Paris, Van Helsing, etc. simply cannot compare.
Overall: Good
Friday, July 4, 2008
Jaws 3 (Jaws 3-D) (1983)
Links: IMDb * Wikipedia * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Premise: A great white shark loose in SeaWorld. The Brody boys have to save the day.
Stars: Dennis Quaid, Lea Thompson, Louis Gossett, Jr., Bess Armstrong, Simon MacCorkindale
Review: Probably the worst in the series (Jaws and Jaws 2 are still the best shark films where the shark is the bad guy) as even Jaws the Revenge was nominally more intelligent than this outing (it did have Michael Caine after all).
It's got all the trappings of a Jaws film, music, occasional disappearances, big showdown scene. But it's surrounded by crap. People in a tank playing with an obviously fake shark. Simon MacCorkindale. A shark swimming backwards. Sharks with emotional connections, like love and revenge.
The 3-D effects are still obvious, even when edited for television or cable. The speargun, the teeth, the arm, the shark heading from the underwater tunnel to the control room, the breaking glass... And they really don't work when viewed in 2-D.
Overall: Bad
Premise: A great white shark loose in SeaWorld. The Brody boys have to save the day.
Stars: Dennis Quaid, Lea Thompson, Louis Gossett, Jr., Bess Armstrong, Simon MacCorkindale
Review: Probably the worst in the series (Jaws and Jaws 2 are still the best shark films where the shark is the bad guy) as even Jaws the Revenge was nominally more intelligent than this outing (it did have Michael Caine after all).
It's got all the trappings of a Jaws film, music, occasional disappearances, big showdown scene. But it's surrounded by crap. People in a tank playing with an obviously fake shark. Simon MacCorkindale. A shark swimming backwards. Sharks with emotional connections, like love and revenge.
The 3-D effects are still obvious, even when edited for television or cable. The speargun, the teeth, the arm, the shark heading from the underwater tunnel to the control room, the breaking glass... And they really don't work when viewed in 2-D.
Overall: Bad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)