The Movie: Pan's Labyrinth, directed by Guillermo Del Toro
Recommendation: Me
Reason: Much as I'd like to say I don't need a reason, I do, and it's that I am in love with fairy stories.
I'm a longtime lover of stories of fae-kind. Snatched babies, spoiled milk, imps who sneak in to tweak the noses of rotten children, courts of sidhe and tuatha that mortals cannot look upon. From David Bowie as the Goblin King to the majesty of Fantasia to Michelle Pfeiffer's questionable depiction of Titania, I crave the presence of magic and faeries in my entertainment. Pan's Labyrinth has raised the bar.
The special effects were above and beyond what I expected. The faun and his host were so real I was less awestruck by him than I was by my own immediate acceptance of his existence. The small fae that attended him were present, not cloying or irritating but simply there. Background and foreground, so to speak. Doug Jones is amazing. His faun has captured my imagination (and his Pale Man will surely stalk my nightmares for some time).
The story was neatly parallel, the struggle for innocence, power and control criss crossing hither and yon from the fairytale landscape to the battlefield that surrounded it. It was an adventure and a horror tale at the same time. Reality was brutal, the fairy landscape less painful but no less frightening. I haven't changed my opinion of the film much-I'm as enthusiastic about it as I was before setting foot in the theater. Second best film of 2006 that I've seen.
-28/365 down, 337/365 to go
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Would someone please close that hatch?
The Movie: House on Haunted Hill, directed by William Castle
Recommendation: Dee
Reason: "Vincent Price is a god among men."
William Castle should be familiar to most horror fans as 'that guy that electrocuted his audiences'. He's the man responsible for The Tingler, in which little zappers prodded the audience into responding to the film. When House on Haunted Hill was screened, there were apparently skeletons that would go whipping past over the audience's heads. Oh, to have been around to see _that_. By today's standards, House on Haunted Hill is pretty tame. There's a bit of blood, a bit of hanging of people. Nothing too extreme.
The cast was alright. Very campy, very Vincent Price. Not a lot to be said about the special effects, though the jump scares were okay. They were sort of the variety of 'the camera can't see it, so obviously the characters can't'. There were some...severe logical problems. But if you just played along, it was not a bad way to kill some time.
Inevitably we have to address the question "soooo...was it better than the remake?" Sure. In some ways it was better, in some it wasn't as good. I'm a fan of cheese, as far as horror movies go, and 1999's remake had it in loads. In different flavors, even. I liked the way the house unleashed hell on the partygoers in the remake. I was a big fan of the opening sequence, and I still get shivers thinking of the herky-jerky motion of some of the ghosts. Jeebus...creepy. Anyway, back on track. I wish the remake had a little more to do with the original. It could have fixed a few things, polished the effects...but alas, it'll sit with Thir13en Ghosts as a nice little bit of 90's nostalgia for Mr. Castle's prime. (That's another guilty pleasure of mine. I refuse to apologize for getting a kick out of Matthew Lillard sometimes.)
-27/365 down, 338/365 to go
Recommendation: Dee
Reason: "Vincent Price is a god among men."
William Castle should be familiar to most horror fans as 'that guy that electrocuted his audiences'. He's the man responsible for The Tingler, in which little zappers prodded the audience into responding to the film. When House on Haunted Hill was screened, there were apparently skeletons that would go whipping past over the audience's heads. Oh, to have been around to see _that_. By today's standards, House on Haunted Hill is pretty tame. There's a bit of blood, a bit of hanging of people. Nothing too extreme.
The cast was alright. Very campy, very Vincent Price. Not a lot to be said about the special effects, though the jump scares were okay. They were sort of the variety of 'the camera can't see it, so obviously the characters can't'. There were some...severe logical problems. But if you just played along, it was not a bad way to kill some time.
Inevitably we have to address the question "soooo...was it better than the remake?" Sure. In some ways it was better, in some it wasn't as good. I'm a fan of cheese, as far as horror movies go, and 1999's remake had it in loads. In different flavors, even. I liked the way the house unleashed hell on the partygoers in the remake. I was a big fan of the opening sequence, and I still get shivers thinking of the herky-jerky motion of some of the ghosts. Jeebus...creepy. Anyway, back on track. I wish the remake had a little more to do with the original. It could have fixed a few things, polished the effects...but alas, it'll sit with Thir13en Ghosts as a nice little bit of 90's nostalgia for Mr. Castle's prime. (That's another guilty pleasure of mine. I refuse to apologize for getting a kick out of Matthew Lillard sometimes.)
-27/365 down, 338/365 to go
Style is King
The Movie: Down With Love, directed by Peyton Reed
Recommendation: Broomie
Reason: "Now you have to watch it!"
I really dislike romantic comedies, as a rule. I wish that most of them were direct-to-video releases, because generally speaking they're boringly shot, uninterestingly directed and acted in by people who are really only on-set to score a paycheck. Most of them are easy, in other words. They could be on TV, and you wouldn't notice the difference. Down With Love is different. It oozes 60's style. The screen is awash in color, and everything is so very, very mod. It's delicious to the eyes. The camerawork may not be legendary, but at least the sets are creative enough that they need a large screen to be appreciated.
They cast Renee Zellweger as the lead. Oh dear...except she's not bad. She's not great, not fantastic really, just there and performing adequately. I guess I enjoy her more in pieces where she sings, though she's not a really great singer. Something about that must up her performance level, like showing a dog a treat. Speaking of, actually, Ewan MacGregor was excellent. He's a great actor, and played off his part very well. At times he was hammy, but it was called for. David Hyde Pierce still has excellent comic timing.
The plot was...alright. Enjoyable, nicely zany for a movie that was trying very hard to be 60's rah rah rah. The ending left a little to be desired, quick as it came. Not a lot more to say about it. This was a nice movie, good for a fun bit of a laugh. Not very epic, but I'm not sorry I watched it.
-26/365 down, 339/365 to go.
Recommendation: Broomie
Reason: "Now you have to watch it!"
I really dislike romantic comedies, as a rule. I wish that most of them were direct-to-video releases, because generally speaking they're boringly shot, uninterestingly directed and acted in by people who are really only on-set to score a paycheck. Most of them are easy, in other words. They could be on TV, and you wouldn't notice the difference. Down With Love is different. It oozes 60's style. The screen is awash in color, and everything is so very, very mod. It's delicious to the eyes. The camerawork may not be legendary, but at least the sets are creative enough that they need a large screen to be appreciated.
They cast Renee Zellweger as the lead. Oh dear...except she's not bad. She's not great, not fantastic really, just there and performing adequately. I guess I enjoy her more in pieces where she sings, though she's not a really great singer. Something about that must up her performance level, like showing a dog a treat. Speaking of, actually, Ewan MacGregor was excellent. He's a great actor, and played off his part very well. At times he was hammy, but it was called for. David Hyde Pierce still has excellent comic timing.
The plot was...alright. Enjoyable, nicely zany for a movie that was trying very hard to be 60's rah rah rah. The ending left a little to be desired, quick as it came. Not a lot more to say about it. This was a nice movie, good for a fun bit of a laugh. Not very epic, but I'm not sorry I watched it.
-26/365 down, 339/365 to go.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
More fashion, less Andy
The Movie: The Devil Wears Prada, directed by David Frankel
Recommendation: A sort of anti-recommendation from Broomie and Dee
Reason: They hated the movie, or at least Broomie did. Dee didn't really see a lot of merit in it.
Movies based on books can be touchy subjects. The Devil Wears Prada was based on a book by the same title, though plotwise it shares about 50% with the book and veers off into the usual hollywood treacle for the rest. I don't insist on total faithfulness in the translation between novel and film, and The Devil Wears Prada doesn't exactly provide a feast of a story anyway. What it is high on is venom and viciousness, much of which somehow didn't make it to the screen.
First and foremost, forget about Anne Hathaway. Visually speaking, she's perfectly cast, with huge orphan eyes and a perpetual expression of 'ooooooooo'. Her character's a whiny little pushover who keeps wimping out and saying "I don't wanna" as she carries out the dirty work her ambition has wrought. It's Meryl Streep and Emily Blunt who bring together the most excellent onscreen pairing I've seen in some time. In a movie that's generally too nice to have the title of the book emblazoned over it, Streep is quietly vicious with the sort of precision that comes from being in the industry a long, long time. She has a gravity about her, a very real sense of 'upper echelon predator'. Meanwhile, Blunt buzzes through the film in a perpetual panic, the only character in the movie who feels true to the spirit of the novel. It's these two that sell it, in a strange tale of the sadomasochistic food chain of high fashion. The rest of the film has been populated with hypocritical backup players who cajole and mock Andy for her dedication to her job ("You did it for shoes, shirts, jewellery.") before babbling off on a tangent about their art, their cookery. Newsflash to everyone who's decided fashion is silly-every luxury is. Paying $100 for a purse is just as ludicrous as paying $20 for a pound of cheese (and I haven't even scraped the upper echelons of fashion or food with those price points). At least you can use the purse more than once.
If the movie had concentrated more on Miranda and how her very presence bowed and warped the world of everyone around her (not just whiny pathetic little Andy), if she was the real juggernaut of power and control she was portrayed as in the novel, I would have enjoyed it much more. As it was, with Anne Hathaway's simpering soppiness taking up most of the screen time, I'm just going to have to relegate myself to only half entertained.
(Oh, and a bit of trivia for those who didn't know? Anna Wintour showed up at the premiere in Prada.)
-25/365 down, 340/365 to go
Recommendation: A sort of anti-recommendation from Broomie and Dee
Reason: They hated the movie, or at least Broomie did. Dee didn't really see a lot of merit in it.
Movies based on books can be touchy subjects. The Devil Wears Prada was based on a book by the same title, though plotwise it shares about 50% with the book and veers off into the usual hollywood treacle for the rest. I don't insist on total faithfulness in the translation between novel and film, and The Devil Wears Prada doesn't exactly provide a feast of a story anyway. What it is high on is venom and viciousness, much of which somehow didn't make it to the screen.
First and foremost, forget about Anne Hathaway. Visually speaking, she's perfectly cast, with huge orphan eyes and a perpetual expression of 'ooooooooo'. Her character's a whiny little pushover who keeps wimping out and saying "I don't wanna" as she carries out the dirty work her ambition has wrought. It's Meryl Streep and Emily Blunt who bring together the most excellent onscreen pairing I've seen in some time. In a movie that's generally too nice to have the title of the book emblazoned over it, Streep is quietly vicious with the sort of precision that comes from being in the industry a long, long time. She has a gravity about her, a very real sense of 'upper echelon predator'. Meanwhile, Blunt buzzes through the film in a perpetual panic, the only character in the movie who feels true to the spirit of the novel. It's these two that sell it, in a strange tale of the sadomasochistic food chain of high fashion. The rest of the film has been populated with hypocritical backup players who cajole and mock Andy for her dedication to her job ("You did it for shoes, shirts, jewellery.") before babbling off on a tangent about their art, their cookery. Newsflash to everyone who's decided fashion is silly-every luxury is. Paying $100 for a purse is just as ludicrous as paying $20 for a pound of cheese (and I haven't even scraped the upper echelons of fashion or food with those price points). At least you can use the purse more than once.
If the movie had concentrated more on Miranda and how her very presence bowed and warped the world of everyone around her (not just whiny pathetic little Andy), if she was the real juggernaut of power and control she was portrayed as in the novel, I would have enjoyed it much more. As it was, with Anne Hathaway's simpering soppiness taking up most of the screen time, I'm just going to have to relegate myself to only half entertained.
(Oh, and a bit of trivia for those who didn't know? Anna Wintour showed up at the premiere in Prada.)
-25/365 down, 340/365 to go
They frickin' fly!
The Movie: The Cave, directed by Bruce Hunt
Recommendation: Dee
Reason: "It's this or Dukes of Hazzard."
Almost everything that's wrong with this movie can be summed up by the incessant lack of cursing on the part of the supposedly very experienced, very X-TREME!!! dive/cave exploration team. When a monster that seems to have come from hell itself is swooping towards you, intent on tearing you limb from limb, most people I know would be cursing their head ff. At least until the creature ripped their head off. It was one more black mark against this generically lame horror/action movie (which was problem #2: Horror movies should not be shot like action movies). It's a telling sign when I never learn character's names, and instead refer to them by their archetypical role throughout the movie ("What is Leader-Man doing now?" "Wow, Grrrl-Power-Girl is stupid." etc.).
This was supposed to be a creature movie, and when your creature is a bunch of wings, claws and fangs, it gets a little lame. It's also fairly lame to repeat the same 'fate' over and over again, as character after character gets dragged off through what appeared to be the same crack in the wall to an uncertain fate. I was cheered by the presence of the Shrieking Eels from The Princess Bride, even if it was unintentional. And I'm not sure if there's an answer to this, but what is up with the idiocy of horror movie characters lately? I mean it, seriously, these people should not be going anywhere with anyone, much less leading expeditions into caves or accompanying their families on strange shortcuts into radioactive mutant country. Yes, I am drawing a parallel between The Cave and The Hills Have Eyes. There is a scene in The Cave in which Leader-Man's Spirited Younger Brother chases after a cohort who has been abducted by the creatures. He finds his cohort IMPALED TO THE CEILING...and proceeds to sob about trying to save him. The man had multiple stalactites through his body cavity. He is dead. Either give him mercy or leave like a coward before you get et. It reminded me of the infuriating sequence in The Hills Have Eyes when the father is set on fire on what is obviously a HUGE pyre that there is no possible way he could have built and immolated himself on all by his lonesome, and the other two menfolk spend an extensive amount of time trying to put out the pyre that is taller than they are (without water, buckets or any sort of firefighting equipment). I love my father, but if I was lost in the freaking desert and all of a sudden he showed up burning to death on a pyre, I would be watching for mutants.
Anyway. Back to The Cave. The end of the movie is lame and predictable. As expected, it leaves room for a sequel, though why anyone would bother...oh wait, this is the same Hollywood that made a sequel to Anaconda. I'm sure it'll be in theaters soon, though the lack of listing on iMDB gives hope. Compared to last year's other 'people in a cave ohgod what was that' movie, The Descent, well...five women who seemed at least moderately intelligent and experienced win over an entire team of morons any day. Sorry Jin from LOST.
-24/365 down, 341/365 to go
Recommendation: Dee
Reason: "It's this or Dukes of Hazzard."
Almost everything that's wrong with this movie can be summed up by the incessant lack of cursing on the part of the supposedly very experienced, very X-TREME!!! dive/cave exploration team. When a monster that seems to have come from hell itself is swooping towards you, intent on tearing you limb from limb, most people I know would be cursing their head ff. At least until the creature ripped their head off. It was one more black mark against this generically lame horror/action movie (which was problem #2: Horror movies should not be shot like action movies). It's a telling sign when I never learn character's names, and instead refer to them by their archetypical role throughout the movie ("What is Leader-Man doing now?" "Wow, Grrrl-Power-Girl is stupid." etc.).
This was supposed to be a creature movie, and when your creature is a bunch of wings, claws and fangs, it gets a little lame. It's also fairly lame to repeat the same 'fate' over and over again, as character after character gets dragged off through what appeared to be the same crack in the wall to an uncertain fate. I was cheered by the presence of the Shrieking Eels from The Princess Bride, even if it was unintentional. And I'm not sure if there's an answer to this, but what is up with the idiocy of horror movie characters lately? I mean it, seriously, these people should not be going anywhere with anyone, much less leading expeditions into caves or accompanying their families on strange shortcuts into radioactive mutant country. Yes, I am drawing a parallel between The Cave and The Hills Have Eyes. There is a scene in The Cave in which Leader-Man's Spirited Younger Brother chases after a cohort who has been abducted by the creatures. He finds his cohort IMPALED TO THE CEILING...and proceeds to sob about trying to save him. The man had multiple stalactites through his body cavity. He is dead. Either give him mercy or leave like a coward before you get et. It reminded me of the infuriating sequence in The Hills Have Eyes when the father is set on fire on what is obviously a HUGE pyre that there is no possible way he could have built and immolated himself on all by his lonesome, and the other two menfolk spend an extensive amount of time trying to put out the pyre that is taller than they are (without water, buckets or any sort of firefighting equipment). I love my father, but if I was lost in the freaking desert and all of a sudden he showed up burning to death on a pyre, I would be watching for mutants.
Anyway. Back to The Cave. The end of the movie is lame and predictable. As expected, it leaves room for a sequel, though why anyone would bother...oh wait, this is the same Hollywood that made a sequel to Anaconda. I'm sure it'll be in theaters soon, though the lack of listing on iMDB gives hope. Compared to last year's other 'people in a cave ohgod what was that' movie, The Descent, well...five women who seemed at least moderately intelligent and experienced win over an entire team of morons any day. Sorry Jin from LOST.
-24/365 down, 341/365 to go
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
