Wow, what a bumpy road it has been. For a while there, it seemed like none of us would be able to view The Interview quite possibly ever. Luckily, Sony manned up, stuck their middle fingers to North Korea, and are inviting us to join them in solidarity. The Interview has been released to select theaters and on Youtube. Like it or not, this whole debacle has turned The Interview into a film that is bigger than what it is, it's become a symbol now. Would it ever have become as popular and big as it is now if it weren't for North Korea's overblown reaction to the film? Quite possibly not, but the only question that really matters now is this : is The Interview any good? Was it worth the hype, turmoil, and danger?
In The Interview; moronic, self-obsessed celebrity interviewer and host of his own talk show (and a huge fan of Lord of The Rings) Dave Skylark (James Franco) is invited to North Korea to interview self-proclaimed fan Kim Jong-un (Randall Park). His best friend and producer, Aaron Rapaport (Seth Rogen) tags along for the ride. Before they can take off for that most dangerous of countries, they are visited by the US Government. Seeing how almost no one is ever given one on one time alone with Kim Jong Un, The US Gov has a very big request for these two: Assassinate Kim Jong-un and win one for freedom and democracy. The task becomes even more difficult when Skylark begins to form a bro-mantic relationship with Kim Jong-un. Is Kim Jong-un not the villain that the news would make him out to be, or is Skylark just the latest victim of Kim Jong-un's manipulative ways?
Randall Parks is perfect (and hilarious and scary) as Kim Jong-un, and Diana Bang is pretty good as Sook; the head of propaganda for North Korea. Lizzy Caplan has little screen time as agent Lacey, who works for the CIA and is the one who seduces both Skylark and Rapaport to the job. Caplan is super hot, and quite funny, making her few scenes stand out. All that said, this is really the Franco/Rogen show. They make for quite the dynamic duo here, most of their scenes are pretty hilarious (especially when they share the screen), and the film reminded me of why they are two of the funniest men in America. Franco plays the bumbling, ego-crazed moron exceptionally well and Rogen does fine work as the straight man of the group.
So, is The Interview funny? Yes, it is hilarious for most of the run time but that is only one of the reasons why it is great. The other reason would be that The Interview comes with some pretty interesting subtext. For the first act of the film, when we are safe inside the USA, the film takes a fairly harsh (but comedic) look at entertainment news. Rogen's Aaron Rapaport feels like he isn't making a difference in America, and would like Skylark to try his hand at more serious stuff (which naturally comes when Skylark is offered the interviewing chance of a lifetime).
During the second half, when Franco and Rogen are entrenched deep inside North Korea, the film satirizes Kim Jong-un. The Interview takes every chance to mercilessly mock Kim, painting him to be a power hungry mad man who lives the life of a spoiled rich kid while actually being an insecure daddy's boy who only wanted his father's approval. It's not hard to see why Kim Jong-un would so harshly oppose this film. The Interview does not paint a rose colored portrait of the dictator, and quite likely The Interview is pretty accurate with it's portrayal of him. I commend Rogen, Franco, Evan Goldberg (The film's director), and Dan Sterling (the films screenwriter) for taking on such a ballsy project and not backing down or blushing when push came to shove. The Interview is a film that hates Kim Jong-un, dictators, and totalitarian states with a passion and it does not back down from it's attack and satirization of these things (and person).
It's refreshing to see a film that can effectively tackle some pretty serious issues while still being a wacky, crazy, silly comedy. The Interview does exactly this. It's not just a funny film, it is also surprisingly smart. I'd say it is certainly worth a watch.
4 STARS
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
SONY CANCELS 'THE INTERVIEW'S' THEATRICAL RELEASE
Originally due for release this Christmas, The Interview was the latest film from the people who gave us This Is The End. The Interview was to star James Franco as a wacky talk show host who is hired by the US Government to travel to North Korea to interview and assassinate that country's feared dictator Kim Jong-un. He is accompanied by Seth Rogen who plays his producer/friend. The film looked like silly fun, but North Korea and Un were not pleased, releasing a statement that if Sony did not pull the film from their release state that they would consider it an act of war and would retaliate with whatever force they deemed necessary.
Naturally, everyone in the U.S. laughed at North Korea's reaction at first. A few months later, the laughing stopped when Sony experienced a crippling cyber attack that wiped out their computer system, leaked private company info, and even leaked four upcoming Sony films including Fury and Annie. As U.S. officials scrambled to investigate who was responsible, it wasn't much longer until the hacker group issued a terrorist threat. It read: "Remember the 11th of September 2001. We recommend you to keep yourself distant from the places at that time (If your house is nearby, you'd better leave)." That's right, the hacker group threatened a series of terrorist attacks on the theaters showing The Interview. While the Department of Homeland Security announced that there was no credible intelligence suggesting that there was an active plot against movie theaters, that didn't stop AMC, Regal, Carmike, and BowTie Cinemas from pulling the film from their theaters nationwide. It didn't take long until Sony made a disturbing announcement: "In light of the decision by the majority of our exhibitors not to show the film The Interview, we have decided not to move forward with the planned December 25th theatrical release."
There were rumors that Sony was considering a premium VOD release on Christmas Day instead, but that rumor was quickly axed by a studio spokesperson who said: "Sony Pictures has no further release plans for the film." This would not only include VOD, but also DVD/Blu-Ray. Now, this doesn't mean we won't ever see The Interview, just that it may be quite some time until we finally do. A few short hours after Sony made the announcement, US officials found North Korea to blame for the Sony hacks and terrorist threats. So the whole debacle comes full circle.
This is a very sad day for American cinema. Censorship and terrorism wins, free expression and Hollywood loses. I thought I lived in a country that wouldn't negotiate or comply with terrorist/terrorist demands. It was quite likely that the threats made were idle ones and that if the film was released as planned nothing major would have happened. In all likelihood, this was just stupid North Korea throwing a hissy fit. I don't blame Sony for pulling the film from theaters, and respect that they placed the safety of American moviegoers above everything else. However, by caving in it sends a dangerous message to terrorists and opposing countries: The US can indeed be threatened and swayed by acts or threats of terrorism. To me, that's the scariest thing of all. It it quite likely that we may see more of these types of threats in the future due to Sony's reaction. Also, I can't help but feel terrible for Seth Rogen, James Franco, and everyone else who worked on this film who worked long and hard and not only won't make any money back for their hard work, but also won't even be able to sit in a theater and watched the finished product. How sad.
It's not certain how the US will react to North Korea's threats, but I feel they MUST be addressed. We MUST take a stand and make it known that this type of nonsense WILL NOT BE TOLERATED EVER. We have got to retaliate in some way, and while it will be hard to effectively punish North Korea (we already have put that country under some pretty heavy economic sanctions), I feel that we must confront that country head on in SOME way even if it's just a threat from US officials. Maybe a proper punishment would be to completely wipe out that country's computer grid, though that would be a pretty tough task and would no doubt take a while to accomplish.
I, as an American citizen and a firm lover of Hollywood and film, am very saddened by this day's events. The Interview looked like a silly, fun film but because North Korea couldn't take a fucking joke (the film wasn't suggesting an assassination of Kim Jong-un, in fact a good portion of the film would have seemed to concentrate on a budding bro-mance between Un and Franco) we have lost out on what could have been the funniest film of 2014. I know I was looking forward to it. Sony's reaction is upsetting but understandable, and once again I don't blame them for reacting the way they did (though, as I said before this is setting a dangerous precedent and sends an even more dangerous message to would be terrorists and opposing countries). I do, however, place full blame on North Korea for being such stupid fucking bastards. Seriously, FUCK YOU GUYS!
I'll leave you all with how some notable names have reacted to Sony's decision:
Aaron Sorkin: "Today The U.S. succumbed to an unprecedented attack on our most cherished, bedrock principle of free speech by a group of North Korean terrorists who threatened to kill moviegoers in order to stop the release of a movie. The wishes of the terrorists were fulfilled in part by easily distracted members of the American press who chose gossip and schadenfruede-fueled reporting over a story with immeasurable consequences for the public-a story that was developing right in front of their eyes. My deepest sympathies go out to Sony pictures, Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg and everyone who worked on The Interview."
Steve Carrell: Sad day for creative expression. #feareatsthesoul
Rob Lowe: Saw @Sethrogen today at JFK. Both of us have never seen or heard of anything like this. Hollywood has done Neville Chamberlain proud today.
Patton Oswalt: All joking aside, we just gave a comfy foothold to censorship & it doesn't get any better from this point on. #TheInterview
Vision Implementer: All of a sudden the comedy is far from a laughing matter #SonyHack
Bill Maher: #TheInterview Is that it takes- an anonymous threat and the numbers 911- to throw free expression under the bus? #PussyNation
Judd Apatow: I think it is disgraceful that these theaters are not showing The Interview. Will they pull any movie that gets anonymous threats now?
Jimmy Kimmell: @JuddApatow I agree wholeheartedly. An un-American act of cowardice that validates terrorist actions and sets a terrifying precedent.
Here are links to articles:
The Interview pulled: http://www.slashfilm.com/the-interview-pulled/
U.S. links North Korea to Sony Hacking: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/world/asia/us-links-north-korea-to-sony-hacking.html?_r=0
North Korea Wins?: http://www.eonline.com/news/607557/north-korea-wins-steve-carell-aaron-sorkin-jimmy-kimmel-and-more-slam-sony-for-pulling-the-interview-from-theaters?cmpid=sn-111021-facebook-na-eonline
Naturally, everyone in the U.S. laughed at North Korea's reaction at first. A few months later, the laughing stopped when Sony experienced a crippling cyber attack that wiped out their computer system, leaked private company info, and even leaked four upcoming Sony films including Fury and Annie. As U.S. officials scrambled to investigate who was responsible, it wasn't much longer until the hacker group issued a terrorist threat. It read: "Remember the 11th of September 2001. We recommend you to keep yourself distant from the places at that time (If your house is nearby, you'd better leave)." That's right, the hacker group threatened a series of terrorist attacks on the theaters showing The Interview. While the Department of Homeland Security announced that there was no credible intelligence suggesting that there was an active plot against movie theaters, that didn't stop AMC, Regal, Carmike, and BowTie Cinemas from pulling the film from their theaters nationwide. It didn't take long until Sony made a disturbing announcement: "In light of the decision by the majority of our exhibitors not to show the film The Interview, we have decided not to move forward with the planned December 25th theatrical release."
There were rumors that Sony was considering a premium VOD release on Christmas Day instead, but that rumor was quickly axed by a studio spokesperson who said: "Sony Pictures has no further release plans for the film." This would not only include VOD, but also DVD/Blu-Ray. Now, this doesn't mean we won't ever see The Interview, just that it may be quite some time until we finally do. A few short hours after Sony made the announcement, US officials found North Korea to blame for the Sony hacks and terrorist threats. So the whole debacle comes full circle.
This is a very sad day for American cinema. Censorship and terrorism wins, free expression and Hollywood loses. I thought I lived in a country that wouldn't negotiate or comply with terrorist/terrorist demands. It was quite likely that the threats made were idle ones and that if the film was released as planned nothing major would have happened. In all likelihood, this was just stupid North Korea throwing a hissy fit. I don't blame Sony for pulling the film from theaters, and respect that they placed the safety of American moviegoers above everything else. However, by caving in it sends a dangerous message to terrorists and opposing countries: The US can indeed be threatened and swayed by acts or threats of terrorism. To me, that's the scariest thing of all. It it quite likely that we may see more of these types of threats in the future due to Sony's reaction. Also, I can't help but feel terrible for Seth Rogen, James Franco, and everyone else who worked on this film who worked long and hard and not only won't make any money back for their hard work, but also won't even be able to sit in a theater and watched the finished product. How sad.
It's not certain how the US will react to North Korea's threats, but I feel they MUST be addressed. We MUST take a stand and make it known that this type of nonsense WILL NOT BE TOLERATED EVER. We have got to retaliate in some way, and while it will be hard to effectively punish North Korea (we already have put that country under some pretty heavy economic sanctions), I feel that we must confront that country head on in SOME way even if it's just a threat from US officials. Maybe a proper punishment would be to completely wipe out that country's computer grid, though that would be a pretty tough task and would no doubt take a while to accomplish.
I, as an American citizen and a firm lover of Hollywood and film, am very saddened by this day's events. The Interview looked like a silly, fun film but because North Korea couldn't take a fucking joke (the film wasn't suggesting an assassination of Kim Jong-un, in fact a good portion of the film would have seemed to concentrate on a budding bro-mance between Un and Franco) we have lost out on what could have been the funniest film of 2014. I know I was looking forward to it. Sony's reaction is upsetting but understandable, and once again I don't blame them for reacting the way they did (though, as I said before this is setting a dangerous precedent and sends an even more dangerous message to would be terrorists and opposing countries). I do, however, place full blame on North Korea for being such stupid fucking bastards. Seriously, FUCK YOU GUYS!
I'll leave you all with how some notable names have reacted to Sony's decision:
Aaron Sorkin: "Today The U.S. succumbed to an unprecedented attack on our most cherished, bedrock principle of free speech by a group of North Korean terrorists who threatened to kill moviegoers in order to stop the release of a movie. The wishes of the terrorists were fulfilled in part by easily distracted members of the American press who chose gossip and schadenfruede-fueled reporting over a story with immeasurable consequences for the public-a story that was developing right in front of their eyes. My deepest sympathies go out to Sony pictures, Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg and everyone who worked on The Interview."
Steve Carrell: Sad day for creative expression. #feareatsthesoul
Rob Lowe: Saw @Sethrogen today at JFK. Both of us have never seen or heard of anything like this. Hollywood has done Neville Chamberlain proud today.
Patton Oswalt: All joking aside, we just gave a comfy foothold to censorship & it doesn't get any better from this point on. #TheInterview
Vision Implementer: All of a sudden the comedy is far from a laughing matter #SonyHack
Bill Maher: #TheInterview Is that it takes- an anonymous threat and the numbers 911- to throw free expression under the bus? #PussyNation
Judd Apatow: I think it is disgraceful that these theaters are not showing The Interview. Will they pull any movie that gets anonymous threats now?
Jimmy Kimmell: @JuddApatow I agree wholeheartedly. An un-American act of cowardice that validates terrorist actions and sets a terrifying precedent.
Here are links to articles:
The Interview pulled: http://www.slashfilm.com/the-interview-pulled/
U.S. links North Korea to Sony Hacking: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/world/asia/us-links-north-korea-to-sony-hacking.html?_r=0
North Korea Wins?: http://www.eonline.com/news/607557/north-korea-wins-steve-carell-aaron-sorkin-jimmy-kimmel-and-more-slam-sony-for-pulling-the-interview-from-theaters?cmpid=sn-111021-facebook-na-eonline
Thursday, November 13, 2014
MOVIES I LOVE: INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM
SPOILERS!!!!
Welcome back to Movies I Love, Today I take a fond loom back at one of my personal childhood favorites: Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom. So, how does it hold up? Honestly....surprisngly well.
In this prequel to the smash hit Raiders of The Lost Ark, Indy (Harrison Ford) finds himself stranded in India with sidekick Short Round (Johnathan Ke Quan) and nightclub singer Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw) after narrowly escaping one of his foes. He stumbles upon an impoverished village that has seen better days. The people of the village attribute their misfortune to a theft of a sacred stone that was once held there, a stone that is also believed to be one of the Sankara Stones (of which there are 5, it is believed that when all 5 are brought together the owner of them shall be given great power or some such nonsense). With the children of the village spirited away, Indy is tasked with a holy mission to travel to nearby Pankot Palace (an area believed to hold great evil within) to retrieve the stone and free the children. What Indy never could have foreseen is that his new adventure will put him through the ultimate crucible as he is tested like never before.
Harrison Ford is comfortably at home playing the roguish charmer Indiana Jones (He also is a great screamer). He is a bit rougher than usual as he threatens women, kills dozens of people, beats children (though in his defense he wasn't quite himself during that part), and seems to only be doing this mission for the "fortune and glory". It seemed to me that a good portion of this film is actually about how Jones becomes a better person. I personally like this rougher version of Indy, though I'm sure there will be a good amount of people that won't. Johnathan Ke Quan is actually pretty awesome as Short Round, Indy's kid side kick. I didn't find him nearly as annoying as I had remembered, in fact I think he adds a good deal to the film and was surprised that he could actually hold his own quite well. He's humorous, but also pretty cool and gets his fair share of action scenes (and even is counted on to save Indy and Willie at a few points). I also liked the relationship him and Indy share throughout the film, they are partners but also so much more than that.
Now, onto what I consider to be the weakest part of this film: Willie Scott. Indy, we need to have a serious talk about your taste in girlfriends. Kate Capshaw portrays Willie Scott, a performer/singer at a Shanghai nightclub. She is certainly very pretty, and is a very good screamer. I don't so much blame Capshaw as I do the writers (though it does seem she hasn't been in much else of note). Willie Scott is one of THE WORST female leads in film history. She never contributes anything to this film (ok, she does save Indy and Short Round at one point....still doesn't redeem the character though). All she does moan, whine, cry, scream, run, and wait for Indy to save her (interesting enough one of the only times she does not scream is when she is being lowered to her doom into a fiery lava pit....what up with that?). I had had enough of her by the time the end credits rolled. This film would have been a ton better without Willie in it. How in the world did this beloved franchise go from making strong female leads in the first film to THIS just one film later (True, this film had a different team of writers which could explain this and the vastly different tone found here)?! I'd say unacceptable.
The tone found in Temple of Doom is quite different than what was found in Raiders. Temple of Doom is a dark, intense, brutal film that is offset by odd moments of silliness that don't really gel with the rest of the film. We have Indy becoming temporally hypnotized into being a bad guy, Indy and Short Round are whipped (that's right a child is whipped here, actually several children are whipped in this film), a man has his heart ripped out of his chest and then is lowered into a fiery lava pit where he is set ablaze and burns to death, a man is crushed by machinery (kind of like Judge Doom in Roger Rabbit), people are machine gunned to death, Indy is poisoned, Indy and Short Round are nearly impaled by spikes, a man is speared by a flaming shis kabob, and on and on and on. I'm well aware that this is one of the issues that a good deal of people have with this film. They think that an Indiana Jones film should not be so dark (and I do feel quite bad for the kids that watched this in theaters, no way they could have expected this). That said, I personally LOVE this more adult tone here. I like seeing our heroes in great peril, and watching them have to fight to survive. To me it seems real because of course Indy would find himself in these kinds of situations a good deal. This is one of the big films that helped to create the PG-13 rating, and it's not hard at all to see why.
Now, Temple of Doom is a prequel and this both adds and detracts from the overall film. On the plus side we know that Willies really is nothing more than a short fling (Raiders proves this fact since she is seen nowhere in the film and is not even referred to), naturally this makes me quite happy. On the negatives though, we never get an explanation as to what happened to Short Round. The bond Indy and him share is a fairly strong one, and I really liked the character. By making this a prequel, we lose this fun character. Oh well, at least he got this film. Another negative is that by the end of this film Indy seems to have a newfound belief in religion...a belief that disappears completely in the first film. So.....what happened? Did Indy look back on this adventure later and decide that it was all just hocus locus and that he had been momentarily fooled as well? Either way, it's disappointing that we lose this cool bit of character development. It's also interesting that Indy has a very small speech at the end where he kind of disses museums. This is interesting because his whole thing in Raiders is "IT BELONGS IN A MUSEUM" (It can be argued that the reason he feels this way in Raiders is because a museum is one of the only places where the ark could be reasonable safe). I'm well aware that Raiders was intended to be its own thing, the filmmakers didn't make it with a sequel or prequel in mind. While I'm able to overlook my small quips with it being a prequel, it can not be denied that the film does indeed lose a small bit by going this route (or maybe by not planning Temple out so that the developments we have at the end of this one would make sense with what we see at the beginning of Raiders).
Truly Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom is a film where anything goes (the film even tells us this in it's opening MUSICAL DANCE NUMBER IN CHINESE, that itself breaks reality by dancing onto a large stage that in no way could exist in the nightclub). I'm well aware of why some people really do not care for this film (in fact, there are those that insist that Temple of Doom is a worse film than Crystal Skull....Crazy, I know) and their complaints are valid ones. However, despite my own issues with the film I still love it like crazy and count it as my personal favorite Indiana Jones film. It's refreshing to see an Indiana Jones film that is so ballsy and different. Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom is a highly entertaining 80's roller-coaster ride, faults and all.
5 STARS- BETTER THAN SEX
Welcome back to Movies I Love, Today I take a fond loom back at one of my personal childhood favorites: Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom. So, how does it hold up? Honestly....surprisngly well.
In this prequel to the smash hit Raiders of The Lost Ark, Indy (Harrison Ford) finds himself stranded in India with sidekick Short Round (Johnathan Ke Quan) and nightclub singer Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw) after narrowly escaping one of his foes. He stumbles upon an impoverished village that has seen better days. The people of the village attribute their misfortune to a theft of a sacred stone that was once held there, a stone that is also believed to be one of the Sankara Stones (of which there are 5, it is believed that when all 5 are brought together the owner of them shall be given great power or some such nonsense). With the children of the village spirited away, Indy is tasked with a holy mission to travel to nearby Pankot Palace (an area believed to hold great evil within) to retrieve the stone and free the children. What Indy never could have foreseen is that his new adventure will put him through the ultimate crucible as he is tested like never before.
Harrison Ford is comfortably at home playing the roguish charmer Indiana Jones (He also is a great screamer). He is a bit rougher than usual as he threatens women, kills dozens of people, beats children (though in his defense he wasn't quite himself during that part), and seems to only be doing this mission for the "fortune and glory". It seemed to me that a good portion of this film is actually about how Jones becomes a better person. I personally like this rougher version of Indy, though I'm sure there will be a good amount of people that won't. Johnathan Ke Quan is actually pretty awesome as Short Round, Indy's kid side kick. I didn't find him nearly as annoying as I had remembered, in fact I think he adds a good deal to the film and was surprised that he could actually hold his own quite well. He's humorous, but also pretty cool and gets his fair share of action scenes (and even is counted on to save Indy and Willie at a few points). I also liked the relationship him and Indy share throughout the film, they are partners but also so much more than that.
Now, onto what I consider to be the weakest part of this film: Willie Scott. Indy, we need to have a serious talk about your taste in girlfriends. Kate Capshaw portrays Willie Scott, a performer/singer at a Shanghai nightclub. She is certainly very pretty, and is a very good screamer. I don't so much blame Capshaw as I do the writers (though it does seem she hasn't been in much else of note). Willie Scott is one of THE WORST female leads in film history. She never contributes anything to this film (ok, she does save Indy and Short Round at one point....still doesn't redeem the character though). All she does moan, whine, cry, scream, run, and wait for Indy to save her (interesting enough one of the only times she does not scream is when she is being lowered to her doom into a fiery lava pit....what up with that?). I had had enough of her by the time the end credits rolled. This film would have been a ton better without Willie in it. How in the world did this beloved franchise go from making strong female leads in the first film to THIS just one film later (True, this film had a different team of writers which could explain this and the vastly different tone found here)?! I'd say unacceptable.
The tone found in Temple of Doom is quite different than what was found in Raiders. Temple of Doom is a dark, intense, brutal film that is offset by odd moments of silliness that don't really gel with the rest of the film. We have Indy becoming temporally hypnotized into being a bad guy, Indy and Short Round are whipped (that's right a child is whipped here, actually several children are whipped in this film), a man has his heart ripped out of his chest and then is lowered into a fiery lava pit where he is set ablaze and burns to death, a man is crushed by machinery (kind of like Judge Doom in Roger Rabbit), people are machine gunned to death, Indy is poisoned, Indy and Short Round are nearly impaled by spikes, a man is speared by a flaming shis kabob, and on and on and on. I'm well aware that this is one of the issues that a good deal of people have with this film. They think that an Indiana Jones film should not be so dark (and I do feel quite bad for the kids that watched this in theaters, no way they could have expected this). That said, I personally LOVE this more adult tone here. I like seeing our heroes in great peril, and watching them have to fight to survive. To me it seems real because of course Indy would find himself in these kinds of situations a good deal. This is one of the big films that helped to create the PG-13 rating, and it's not hard at all to see why.
Now, Temple of Doom is a prequel and this both adds and detracts from the overall film. On the plus side we know that Willies really is nothing more than a short fling (Raiders proves this fact since she is seen nowhere in the film and is not even referred to), naturally this makes me quite happy. On the negatives though, we never get an explanation as to what happened to Short Round. The bond Indy and him share is a fairly strong one, and I really liked the character. By making this a prequel, we lose this fun character. Oh well, at least he got this film. Another negative is that by the end of this film Indy seems to have a newfound belief in religion...a belief that disappears completely in the first film. So.....what happened? Did Indy look back on this adventure later and decide that it was all just hocus locus and that he had been momentarily fooled as well? Either way, it's disappointing that we lose this cool bit of character development. It's also interesting that Indy has a very small speech at the end where he kind of disses museums. This is interesting because his whole thing in Raiders is "IT BELONGS IN A MUSEUM" (It can be argued that the reason he feels this way in Raiders is because a museum is one of the only places where the ark could be reasonable safe). I'm well aware that Raiders was intended to be its own thing, the filmmakers didn't make it with a sequel or prequel in mind. While I'm able to overlook my small quips with it being a prequel, it can not be denied that the film does indeed lose a small bit by going this route (or maybe by not planning Temple out so that the developments we have at the end of this one would make sense with what we see at the beginning of Raiders).
Truly Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom is a film where anything goes (the film even tells us this in it's opening MUSICAL DANCE NUMBER IN CHINESE, that itself breaks reality by dancing onto a large stage that in no way could exist in the nightclub). I'm well aware of why some people really do not care for this film (in fact, there are those that insist that Temple of Doom is a worse film than Crystal Skull....Crazy, I know) and their complaints are valid ones. However, despite my own issues with the film I still love it like crazy and count it as my personal favorite Indiana Jones film. It's refreshing to see an Indiana Jones film that is so ballsy and different. Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom is a highly entertaining 80's roller-coaster ride, faults and all.
5 STARS- BETTER THAN SEX
Thursday, November 6, 2014
INTERSTELLAR IS A LONG, TALKATIVE EXPLORATION OF DEEP SPACE
Interstellar is the newest film from Christopher Nolan, and it's one of the most highly talked about and anticipated movies of 2014. So, how did it fare?
In Interstellar, The Earth has slowly degraded into an arid, barren dustbowl where the only remaining crop is corn (and even that is starting to die off). The Nitrogen levels are also starting to rise, so the people that don't starve will be the first to suffocate. Desperate to save mankind, NASA sends a group of scientists and good ole boy Matthew McConaughey through a wormhole and into another galaxy in search of a planet that could hold life. "Mankind was born on Earth, it was never intended to die here".
The cast here is surprisingly strong. Interstellar is essentially a one man show , but there are other recognizable names in smaller roles as well. Mackenzie Foy is a real treat as Murph, the intelligent and loving daughter of McConaughey's Cooper. The scenes she shares with McConaughey feel real and are pretty heartfelt and emotional. It's really cool to see these two play off of each other, and support each other through their performances. I really bought them as father/daughter, and their relationship is one of the defining points of this film. I'd say Foy is easily one of the best parts of this movie.
McConaughey puts on another powerhouse performance (The McConaissence continues). He is the main focus for most of this film, and we spend pretty much all of the film with his character. If McConaughey did not deliver, this film would have flopped. Luckily, he brings the goods here. I'd say this is one of his best performances, and his more emotional scenes are quite affecting.
Anne Hathaway is pretty good as Amelia, one of Cooper's flight mates. Hathaway performs her role quite well, but isn't as memorable as others. Michael Caine is also pretty good as Professor Brand, the NASA scientist who recruits Cooper. He's your typical Michael Caine character, and I really liked him. He is at his Michael Caine-iest here, and he actually is pretty memorable (plus, some of the more memorable dialogue belongs to him). Jessica Chastain portrays one of the more important characters and is pretty great. In an attempt to avoid spoilers (no matter how minor) I'm not going to say who she plays but I will say that I really enjoyed seeing her in the film, and that she performs nicely in her role. Bill Irwin is pretty perfect as the voice of TARS, a unique, blocky robot that is programmed with the personality of a U.S Marine. TARS is actually given a good deal to do here (he's a fairly big, important role), and not only is surprisingly likable...he also makes quite the impression and is another memorable character in the film. There are tons of surprise appearances here from well known names, and part of the fun of this film is seeing who pops up. It's almost like a really good game of Guess Who.
The visuals in Interstellar are gorgeous. This is a film that takes place in the vastness of space and we get to explore a wormhole, a blackhole, and several new planets. Even the parts on Earth are pretty despite the general bleakness of it all (Dust everywhere). While watching the film, it really does feel like you are in a different galaxy and that you are exploring new planets. I for one would like to know what areas they shot at for the new planets because the places they used are haunting and gorgeous in their solitude and vastness. Interstellar has one of the largest scopes I've seen in a film, it expands far beyond our galaxy and into unknown areas. It's actually quite thrilling to travel with the filmmakers to these new and unexplored locations.
If you walked in to Interstellar expecting action of any kind, you walked into the wrong film. There are barely any action scenes here at all. This is a thinking man's science fiction film and so most of the run time is spent exploring, and watching characters discuss new philosophies, sciences, and theories. There are some big ideas here, and this seems like a film that wants to expand your mind a bit. Most of the science seems sound, except for what the film thinks is the answer to Earth's problems (It's a big idea, but one that kind of seems silly when you stop and really think about what they are saying), and while one of the key scenes near the ending is a bit confusing, I still got the gist of what was going on (You'll know what I'm talking about when you see it).
Interstellar is a slow, deliberately paced film that takes it's time-sweet-time getting to its final destination. It runs at around 2 hours and 49 minutes long, but it feels like 4 hours. When you walk in to see this film, you are making a commitment. I will say that the first two acts had me completely enthralled, but I felt that Interstellar started to run out of steam near the end. I could see how quite a few people would perceive this film as being boring. Once again, not much action really occurs (lots of exploring and talking), and the film definitely drags a good deal but that's kind of the deal with these types of artsy, intelligent, hard sci-fi films. Either you like this kind of thing, or you don't.
Intestellar is a film that deserves to be seen in a theater (preferably one with IMAX, if I do see it again it will be in IMAX. Felt like I missed out seeing it on a regular screen). Interstellar is definitely not without its flaws, but I still would say that this is my personal favorite Nolan film I've seen. It's one of the most ambitious films I've seen and it's scope is downright epic (spanning galaxies). I know that by the time I left the theater, I felt like I had made the journey with Cooper and crew. The cast is a strong one, McConaughey anchors the proceedings (he carries this film on his back), it's ideas and science is interesting, and its visuals are stunning.It's a film that wants you to think about the ideas it's discussing. Interstellar did struggle to keep my attention at points, but I'm glad I stuck with it because the end product may be slow and intellectual but is still definitely rewarding. Nolan is clearly a fan of 2001: A Space Odyssey, and his Interstellar is easily the 2001: A Space Odyssey for a new generation.
4 STARS
In Interstellar, The Earth has slowly degraded into an arid, barren dustbowl where the only remaining crop is corn (and even that is starting to die off). The Nitrogen levels are also starting to rise, so the people that don't starve will be the first to suffocate. Desperate to save mankind, NASA sends a group of scientists and good ole boy Matthew McConaughey through a wormhole and into another galaxy in search of a planet that could hold life. "Mankind was born on Earth, it was never intended to die here".
The cast here is surprisingly strong. Interstellar is essentially a one man show , but there are other recognizable names in smaller roles as well. Mackenzie Foy is a real treat as Murph, the intelligent and loving daughter of McConaughey's Cooper. The scenes she shares with McConaughey feel real and are pretty heartfelt and emotional. It's really cool to see these two play off of each other, and support each other through their performances. I really bought them as father/daughter, and their relationship is one of the defining points of this film. I'd say Foy is easily one of the best parts of this movie.
McConaughey puts on another powerhouse performance (The McConaissence continues). He is the main focus for most of this film, and we spend pretty much all of the film with his character. If McConaughey did not deliver, this film would have flopped. Luckily, he brings the goods here. I'd say this is one of his best performances, and his more emotional scenes are quite affecting.
Anne Hathaway is pretty good as Amelia, one of Cooper's flight mates. Hathaway performs her role quite well, but isn't as memorable as others. Michael Caine is also pretty good as Professor Brand, the NASA scientist who recruits Cooper. He's your typical Michael Caine character, and I really liked him. He is at his Michael Caine-iest here, and he actually is pretty memorable (plus, some of the more memorable dialogue belongs to him). Jessica Chastain portrays one of the more important characters and is pretty great. In an attempt to avoid spoilers (no matter how minor) I'm not going to say who she plays but I will say that I really enjoyed seeing her in the film, and that she performs nicely in her role. Bill Irwin is pretty perfect as the voice of TARS, a unique, blocky robot that is programmed with the personality of a U.S Marine. TARS is actually given a good deal to do here (he's a fairly big, important role), and not only is surprisingly likable...he also makes quite the impression and is another memorable character in the film. There are tons of surprise appearances here from well known names, and part of the fun of this film is seeing who pops up. It's almost like a really good game of Guess Who.
The visuals in Interstellar are gorgeous. This is a film that takes place in the vastness of space and we get to explore a wormhole, a blackhole, and several new planets. Even the parts on Earth are pretty despite the general bleakness of it all (Dust everywhere). While watching the film, it really does feel like you are in a different galaxy and that you are exploring new planets. I for one would like to know what areas they shot at for the new planets because the places they used are haunting and gorgeous in their solitude and vastness. Interstellar has one of the largest scopes I've seen in a film, it expands far beyond our galaxy and into unknown areas. It's actually quite thrilling to travel with the filmmakers to these new and unexplored locations.
If you walked in to Interstellar expecting action of any kind, you walked into the wrong film. There are barely any action scenes here at all. This is a thinking man's science fiction film and so most of the run time is spent exploring, and watching characters discuss new philosophies, sciences, and theories. There are some big ideas here, and this seems like a film that wants to expand your mind a bit. Most of the science seems sound, except for what the film thinks is the answer to Earth's problems (It's a big idea, but one that kind of seems silly when you stop and really think about what they are saying), and while one of the key scenes near the ending is a bit confusing, I still got the gist of what was going on (You'll know what I'm talking about when you see it).
Interstellar is a slow, deliberately paced film that takes it's time-sweet-time getting to its final destination. It runs at around 2 hours and 49 minutes long, but it feels like 4 hours. When you walk in to see this film, you are making a commitment. I will say that the first two acts had me completely enthralled, but I felt that Interstellar started to run out of steam near the end. I could see how quite a few people would perceive this film as being boring. Once again, not much action really occurs (lots of exploring and talking), and the film definitely drags a good deal but that's kind of the deal with these types of artsy, intelligent, hard sci-fi films. Either you like this kind of thing, or you don't.
Intestellar is a film that deserves to be seen in a theater (preferably one with IMAX, if I do see it again it will be in IMAX. Felt like I missed out seeing it on a regular screen). Interstellar is definitely not without its flaws, but I still would say that this is my personal favorite Nolan film I've seen. It's one of the most ambitious films I've seen and it's scope is downright epic (spanning galaxies). I know that by the time I left the theater, I felt like I had made the journey with Cooper and crew. The cast is a strong one, McConaughey anchors the proceedings (he carries this film on his back), it's ideas and science is interesting, and its visuals are stunning.It's a film that wants you to think about the ideas it's discussing. Interstellar did struggle to keep my attention at points, but I'm glad I stuck with it because the end product may be slow and intellectual but is still definitely rewarding. Nolan is clearly a fan of 2001: A Space Odyssey, and his Interstellar is easily the 2001: A Space Odyssey for a new generation.
4 STARS
Friday, October 31, 2014
FIGHT FEST REVIEW: THE UNIVERSAL MONSTERS
This is a review I have been wanting to do for several years now. The Universal monsters mean a lot to me and to film in general. They helped to shape the horror genre and to make Universal the classic studio it is today. As you will see, these films all have things in common: strong performances, timeless characters, rich atmospheres, and memorable scripts. Tonight, I won't just review these films, I will rank them. So, let's get this rotting corpse a rollin.
Creature From The Black Lagoon: The weakest of the Universal Monster films, but it's still an entertaining outing. It's very campy, silly, and filled with "science" (yeah, it's not science). I thought the best part of this film was the Gill-Man, who's got an interesting costume and personality. The human actors aren't too memorable, but Julie Adams is mighty pretty. In all, it's memorable because it's a fun time. That said, Maybe not the best choice to watch around October, some of the film is shot at Silver Springs (which I've actually visited WOOT!) and while it is a beautiful location I just didn't get the Halloween vibe from it.
Rating: 3.5 STARS
Rank: #6
Bride of Frankenstein: Not the best Universal Monster film. Karloff returns and still impresses as The Monster. In this sequel, he is softened a bit. The Monster is more likable, and he talks here uttering a few classic lines like "We belong dead". Colin Clive also returns as Henry Frankenstein, and gets a significantly reduced amount of screen time. This sequel makes obvious some of the themes in Frankenstein, and I'd count that as a bit of a weak point. Other weak points include a distinct attempt at comedy, but these parts come on way too strong, are over the top, and when are present almost drown out every other aspect of the film (the worst sinner when it comes to this is Una O'Connor who is just over-the-top and grating). One of the more curious aspects of this film is that, for some strange reason, Lovecraft's Dr. Pretorius is the main villain here. It doesn't make much sense why (or how) he is even here, but I do appreciate it as sort of a loving nod to another classic literary author and character. While there are a few classic scenes and lines, overall Bride of Frankenstein is still a fairly uneven but enjoyable outing. I wouldn't say it's iconic, or even great but it is good and fun.
Rating: 3.5 STARS
Rank: #5
The Mummy: The film is notable for it's fantastic atmosphere and sets (I LOVE that the majority of the film takes place inside an Egyptian museum complete with coffins and such, so cool). Karloff makes Imhotep an imposing but majestic figure, and Zita Johann as Helen is a beauty with her large eyes. David Manners is kind of bland as the "hero" of the film, and Edward Van Sloan is a likeable Van Helsing-esque expert (and indeed, Sloan portrayed Van Helsing in Dracula) who has made it his mission to stop Imhotep at all costs. The story of Ancient Egyptian Gods, eternal love, resurrection, betrayal, and madness is also pretty fascinating at points. The film starts out really great, but gets sillier as it progresses onwards. It's worth a view for Karloff, Johann and the fantastic sets and atmosphere...it really does feel like you are in Ancient Egypt in some points. The Mummy is still one of the best Universal Horror films out there. I would highly recommend it.
Rating: 4 STARS
Rank: #4
The Wolf Man: The definitive werewolf film. There are several really strong performances here. Evelyn Ankers makes for a fine romantic interest as Gwen. She is mighty pretty, and her character is a strong and interesting one. Claude Rains is great as Sir John Talbot. He is a firm skeptic, and while he may seem a bit cold he still cares very much about his son Lawrence. I really liked his character. Naturally, we can't talk about The Wolf Man without talking about Lon Chaney Jr, son of "The Man Of A Million Faces" Lon Chaney. Here, he plays Lawrence Talbot who is the unfortunate protagonist of our tale. He puts on a multi-layered performance as a very good man who, try as he might, cannot prevent himself from doing very bad things when the wolfsbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright (that's right, originally wolfsbane, a plant, played a large role in the myth of the werewolf). Lon Chaney Jr's Lawrence Talbot is very likable and sympathetic, and when he turns it's almost like a different actor is playing him. He disappears into the role of both Lawrence and The Wolf Man, it's kind of incredible. The atmosphere here is also rich and moody. Fog often overwhelms the camera (in a good way), and the woods is a haunting, memorable location. The Wolf Man is one of the great screen tragedies, and the material here is actually fairly powerful stuff. I couldn't help but be a bit moved by the iconic finale. The Wolf Man would go on to define the werewolf genre, influencing many other films that would come after (like An American Werewolf In London, that pays homage to this classic and even name checks it a few times). There's no doubt about it, The Wolf Man earns its status as an iconic horror film.
Rating: 5 STARS
Rank: #3
Dracula: This is it guys, the one that started it all: The first ever Universal Monster film. Universal took the source material and managed to craft a film that is completely their own. Bella Lugosi is the stuff of legends as the titular Dracula. He puts on a natural, powerful, and fascinating performance as the titular count. It's no wonder his portrayal has become as iconic and widely revered as it is. Edward Von Sloan is the perfect foil to the evil count as the pure force of good Van Helsing, whose sole mission is to put a stop to Dracula and his madness once and for all. Sloan puts on yet another iconic performance in the film. Dwight Frye is unforgettable and chilling as Renfield, the insane, (somewhat) loyal servant to Dracula. His portrayal is easily iconic (there's that word again), and he created what is essentially the "Igor" character. Helen Chandler is also pretty memorable as Mina, who is very pretty and has some nice eyes on her (that she knows how to use). The sets and atmosphere are rich, elaborate and superb. We get a foggy London, and a creepy Carfax Abbey, but by far the standout here is that of Castle Dracula, which is gorgeous, haunting, and foreboding. The script is also pretty strong, and filled with many memorable, classic lines. I was surprised by just how strong of a film Dracula remains today, even when it gets a little bit silly at times, you still completely buy into this world and it's hard not to get immersed into it. Dracula is a fun, very creepy, and all around great gothic horror/romance. I'd say it kind of crawls under your skin. It goes without saying that Dracula is an important film in horror history, and it still remains one of the all time best Universal monster films.
Rating: 5 STARS
Rank: #2
Frankenstein: THE Iconic Universal Monster film. Colin Clive is chilling as Dr. Henry Frankenstein, an unhinged scientist who is obsessed with finding the secret to life. He succeeds, but the results of his mad experiment leave him guilt ridden and restless. Clive is perfect in the role, and his portrayal is one of the iconic mad scientists of film. He makes the character fascinating, creepy, but sympathetic, sad and tragic. Dwight Frye is also perfect as Fritz, the original "Igor" role. He literally originated the Igor role as he portrayed both Renfield and Fritz, characters that embody many of the tropes that we have come to associate with the Igor character. Easily the best part about this film is Boris Karloff as The Monster. Here, he is the stuff legends are made of and he puts on a performance that will continue to be talked about forever. Karloff pours every inch of his soul into the tortured monster, who does not understand what he is, and is unable to control himself. Karloff can go from a state of childlike wonder and innocence and in the very next second fly into a fit of homicidal rage, his range here is truly impressive. He is the ultimate misunderstood monster of the silver screen, and his portrayal will live on for ages. He is what makes Frankenstein the memorable horror-tragedy it is today, and his Monster is endlessly watchable. The sets are fairly elaborate (especially Frankenstein's lab), and the workings of the plot may seem simple, but are actually pretty complex. There is a lot going on here, and the film is filled with many different themes that are fun to chew on and think about. Filled with rich, complex characters, elaborate sets, a strong and memorable script, and superb acting, Frankenstein earns its iconic, timeless status and it remains a film that can be watched countless times thanks to its performances, characters, and themes. I'd say it's the best (and my personal favorite) Universal monster film.
Rating: 5 STARS
Rank: #1
And just like that, the book closes on yet another Fright Fest. Parting is such sweet sorrow, but take comfort in the knowledge that the children of the night are always there, just out of sight, waiting in the darkness. I hope you all enjoyed my Fright Fest, and till next time: HAPPY HAUNTING!
Thursday, October 30, 2014
NIGHTCRAWLER
In Nightcrawler, we follow low life Louis Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal). He is a restless figure who wants to step it up a bit, and so sets his sights on becoming the best nightcrawler there is( For those not in the know, a nightcrawler is a person who roams the streets at night, scanning police radios so they can arrive at crime scenes before anyone else and thusly catch some hopefully great footage that they can then sell to news stations). Along the way he has has to deal with rivals (Bill Paxton), a poorly motivated employee (Riz Ahmed), and a head of a news station (Rene Russo).
Jake Gyllenhaal shines as the greasy, oily, slick, and smart Louis. This is unlike any other role we have seen him tackle so far, and he does so with an energy and enthusiasm that is thrilling. It is uncomfortable to watch him here, I felt like I didn't want to even touch the guy but I couldn't keep my eyes off him. Gyllenhaal's Louis is a POS who will do anything to get ahead of the game, and he seems to be an expert liar and manipulator. There seems to be something off about him as well, like he may have some form of Aspergers....or maybe he "just doesn't like people", as he quips in a scene. Either way, it is a thrill to follow this character down into some extremely dark depths and get to watch just how deep and far he will go to get on top (and the deeper he goes, the higher up the rungs of the ladder he climbs). I'd say this is easily Gyllenhaal's best role to date, he plays against type and clearly relishes the chance to do so. I'm hoping he gets a nomination for his performance here, he deserves it. I'm going to say that this is my favorite performance of the year thus far.
The supporting cast is pretty strong as well. Riz Ahmed is entertaining and likable as Rick, an impoverished man who Louis hires as his assistant. Riz gets to play not only a sane voice, but almost acts as an audience stand in at times. Rene Russo is pretty great as Nina, the head of a news outlet that Louis is working with. Like Louis, she doesn't have many morals and encourages him throughout the film. Bill Paxton also makes an appearance as Joe Loder, a seedy rival of Louis'. Like always, Paxton makes something out of what is essentially nothing, crafting a character that is fun to spend a few minutes with here or there (plus, I found it entertaining to hear Paxton use the term 'brah"repeatedly).
The cinematography in Nightcrawler is absolutely gorgeous (props to Robert Elswit, who was in charge of cinematography for the film). The film opens with various shots of a gorgeous Los Angeles at night, and while most of the film takes place in really dirty, seedy, "bad" areas Nightcrawler always looks shiny, polished and clean (I would compare the cinematography to Drive's). The script is also surprisingly superb and well written. Nightcrawler is directed by first timer Dan Gilroy (who also wrote the script for the film), but you honestly wouldn't be able to tell. The film is pretty well paced, and while it's running time is just three minutes shy of two hours, I was so caught up in the film that the time really flew by. There were no parts that dragged, except for maybe the last 5 minutes or so. Right when you start to feel how long this film is, it wraps everything up.
I honestly can't think of a single problem I had with Nightcrawler. It manages to be a behind the scenes portrait of how news rooms work, a fascinating character study of Gyllenhaal's Louis, and an enthralling trip down a dark rabbit hole. It is an incredibly dark film, and I left the theater feeling dirty (like I needed a shower) but I still loved the hell out of it. Nightcrawler's dark subject matter and POS protagonist may be a turn off for some, but it did the trick for me! When all is said and done, Nightcrawler is a gorgeous, brilliant film that easily emerges as one of the top films of 2014. I'd say it's definitely a must see.
5 STARS
Jake Gyllenhaal shines as the greasy, oily, slick, and smart Louis. This is unlike any other role we have seen him tackle so far, and he does so with an energy and enthusiasm that is thrilling. It is uncomfortable to watch him here, I felt like I didn't want to even touch the guy but I couldn't keep my eyes off him. Gyllenhaal's Louis is a POS who will do anything to get ahead of the game, and he seems to be an expert liar and manipulator. There seems to be something off about him as well, like he may have some form of Aspergers....or maybe he "just doesn't like people", as he quips in a scene. Either way, it is a thrill to follow this character down into some extremely dark depths and get to watch just how deep and far he will go to get on top (and the deeper he goes, the higher up the rungs of the ladder he climbs). I'd say this is easily Gyllenhaal's best role to date, he plays against type and clearly relishes the chance to do so. I'm hoping he gets a nomination for his performance here, he deserves it. I'm going to say that this is my favorite performance of the year thus far.
The supporting cast is pretty strong as well. Riz Ahmed is entertaining and likable as Rick, an impoverished man who Louis hires as his assistant. Riz gets to play not only a sane voice, but almost acts as an audience stand in at times. Rene Russo is pretty great as Nina, the head of a news outlet that Louis is working with. Like Louis, she doesn't have many morals and encourages him throughout the film. Bill Paxton also makes an appearance as Joe Loder, a seedy rival of Louis'. Like always, Paxton makes something out of what is essentially nothing, crafting a character that is fun to spend a few minutes with here or there (plus, I found it entertaining to hear Paxton use the term 'brah"repeatedly).
The cinematography in Nightcrawler is absolutely gorgeous (props to Robert Elswit, who was in charge of cinematography for the film). The film opens with various shots of a gorgeous Los Angeles at night, and while most of the film takes place in really dirty, seedy, "bad" areas Nightcrawler always looks shiny, polished and clean (I would compare the cinematography to Drive's). The script is also surprisingly superb and well written. Nightcrawler is directed by first timer Dan Gilroy (who also wrote the script for the film), but you honestly wouldn't be able to tell. The film is pretty well paced, and while it's running time is just three minutes shy of two hours, I was so caught up in the film that the time really flew by. There were no parts that dragged, except for maybe the last 5 minutes or so. Right when you start to feel how long this film is, it wraps everything up.
I honestly can't think of a single problem I had with Nightcrawler. It manages to be a behind the scenes portrait of how news rooms work, a fascinating character study of Gyllenhaal's Louis, and an enthralling trip down a dark rabbit hole. It is an incredibly dark film, and I left the theater feeling dirty (like I needed a shower) but I still loved the hell out of it. Nightcrawler's dark subject matter and POS protagonist may be a turn off for some, but it did the trick for me! When all is said and done, Nightcrawler is a gorgeous, brilliant film that easily emerges as one of the top films of 2014. I'd say it's definitely a must see.
5 STARS
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
RIGHT FEST REVIEW: CANDYMAN
In Candyman, young Grad student Helen (Virginia Madsen) is doing a thesis on urban legends and in her research comes across the legend of the Candyman (Tony Todd), a murderous man with a hook for a hand who can be summoned by saying his name 5 times into a mirror. Intrigued, Helen decides to dig deeper and in doing so unwittingly summons the Candyman who immediately sets about wrecking her and her friend's lives.
Virginia Madsen (Yes, she is Michael Madsen's sister) makes for a strong female lead as Helen Lyle(that we also get some boobage from, giggitty). As far as top 90's horror heroine's go, I'd place her several notches above Scream's Sidney. She is a willful, intelligent, independent woman that also makes quite a few mistakes and spends a good portion of the film being tempted by evil. I really dug her character, and found it super easy to root for her. Tony Todd is a frightening yet fascinating villain (Who has a rich backstory to boot) who seems to have a penchant for fur coats. He isn't in it a whole lot, not making his grand appearance until the second half or so of the film. Todd and Mansen share a pretty super chemistry, and when both are in a scene together fun times are sure to be had.
Before viewing this, I thought Candyman looked like a typical 90's slasher. Now that I have seen it, I realize I couldn't have been more wrong. This is a film that always found some new way to surprise me, and it's not at all what I had thought it would be. For a horror film, we don't get too many deaths (the ones we do get are freaking brutal though). In fact, most of the run time is spent with Helen as she investigates, it's not until the latter half that things really start to go BOOM!
Candyman has a Clive Barker-esque feel to it, which is only appropriate considering it's based on one of his novels (and while he doesn't direct, I still think this is one of my favorite Clive Barker films). It's a film that asks a chilling question: What if each urban legend had some basis in fact? Candyman is pretty freaky, it has a dark tone and manages to be one of the more mature, adult horror films I've seen. I'd say imagine if Scream, Nightmare On Elm Street, and Hellraiser were to mix: The end product would be Candyman, one hell of a different horror-ific treat.
5 STARS
Virginia Madsen (Yes, she is Michael Madsen's sister) makes for a strong female lead as Helen Lyle(that we also get some boobage from, giggitty). As far as top 90's horror heroine's go, I'd place her several notches above Scream's Sidney. She is a willful, intelligent, independent woman that also makes quite a few mistakes and spends a good portion of the film being tempted by evil. I really dug her character, and found it super easy to root for her. Tony Todd is a frightening yet fascinating villain (Who has a rich backstory to boot) who seems to have a penchant for fur coats. He isn't in it a whole lot, not making his grand appearance until the second half or so of the film. Todd and Mansen share a pretty super chemistry, and when both are in a scene together fun times are sure to be had.
Before viewing this, I thought Candyman looked like a typical 90's slasher. Now that I have seen it, I realize I couldn't have been more wrong. This is a film that always found some new way to surprise me, and it's not at all what I had thought it would be. For a horror film, we don't get too many deaths (the ones we do get are freaking brutal though). In fact, most of the run time is spent with Helen as she investigates, it's not until the latter half that things really start to go BOOM!
Candyman has a Clive Barker-esque feel to it, which is only appropriate considering it's based on one of his novels (and while he doesn't direct, I still think this is one of my favorite Clive Barker films). It's a film that asks a chilling question: What if each urban legend had some basis in fact? Candyman is pretty freaky, it has a dark tone and manages to be one of the more mature, adult horror films I've seen. I'd say imagine if Scream, Nightmare On Elm Street, and Hellraiser were to mix: The end product would be Candyman, one hell of a different horror-ific treat.
5 STARS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)