Archive for the Thrillers Category

« Older Entries

THE PURGE (2013)

Posted in 2013, Bad Situations, Cinema Knife Fights, Controverisal Films, Dystopian Futures, Killers, LL Soares Reviews, Masks, Suspense, The Future, Thrillers with tags , , , , , on June 10, 2013 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: THE PURGE (2013)
By L.L. Soares (with a brief appearance by Michael Arruda)

The-Purge-2013-Movie-Poster(THE SCENE: Interior of a house at twilight. The annual Purge ritual is about to begin)

L.L. SOARES: Ah, it’s almost time for the Purge, Michael! I can hardly wait. (starts strapping on axes and handguns and chainsaws and hunting knives and chainsaws and shotguns and ice picks and rocket launchers).

MICHAEL ARRUDA; That sure is a lot of stuff.

LS: You bet. I take this holiday seriously. It’s the one time of the year I can get away with murder, literally, without it being a crime.

(LOUD NOISE is heard. The sound of metal crunching)

LS: What the hell is that? (contines to strap on things like battleaxes and longswords and maces and a gattling gun and poison darts and venomous snakes and the shiny ball from PHANTASM)

MA: Oops.

LS: What do you mean…Oops?

MA: I think I accidentally pressed the “Lock Down” button. Nobody can get in now.

LS: That’s okay. I can still go outside, right?

(MA does not respond)

LS: Right?

(MA twiddles thumbs)

LS: RIGHT??

MA: Well, you see, I’ve got my system on a timer. No one can disarm it until the Purge is over. So you can’t leave.

LS: You’re telling me I waiting all year long for Purge night so that I can commit whatever crimes I want and not be arrested, and on this momentous night, you have rigged it so I can’t leave your house?

MA: Bingo.

(LS straps on one last item, a little tiny Derringer, and goes to take a step forward, and collapses under the weight of everything he has strapped to himself.)

MA: Looks like you wouldn’t be able to make it ouside with all that stuff anyway.

LS: I could always downgrade!

MA: Look, you can’t join in on the Purge this year. Deal with it. In the meantime, we can make popcorn and review this week’s movie. Which just happens to be THE PURGE. Do you want to start?

LS (starts crying and stamping his feet): But I wanted to do some killing and pillaging!

MA: I said I was sorry.

LS: Okay, I’ll start the review. But you owe me one.

MA: You start. I’ll go put some popcorn in the microwave. (Leaves the room)

THE PURGE takes place is a dystopian future. Or is utopian? I guess it depends on your point of view. There’s low unemployment, a low crime rate, no war, and lots of prosperity. How did society achieve all this, you ask? Well, there’s some talk of “New Founding Fathers,” so I’m guessing a new kind of government has taken over. And part of this new regime is an annual ritual, the Purge, which states that one night a year—from 7pm until 7am the next morning—all crime is legal, including murder (of course, there’s a clause in there where certain government people with a clearance of 10 or higher are exempt and cannot be killed. Those guys always have to cover their asses). There’s also a restriction on the kinds of weapons you can use, I noticed, too. Well, enough about that….the idea is that if society can cut loose and go bonkers one night a year, it will purge everyone’s violent tendencies so they can go back to being model citizens again the rest of the year.

I actually found this premise really interesting. Finally, a horror movie about IDEAS. Most Hollywood horror movies are more concerned with body counts. Could a future like this ever really happen? Who knows. But it’s an interesting theory. I for one have always really dug the theme of civilization vs. savagery; it’s a theme that has even popped up in some of my fiction.

(Pulls out a copy of Freud’s Civilization and Its Discontents and thumbs through it)

Anyway, our protagonists are your typical American family, the Sandins. There’s the father, James Sandin (Ethan Hawke, most recently in last year’s above-average thriller, SINISTER) , mother Mary (Lena Headey, probably best known these days as the villainous Cersei Lannister in the megahit HBO series GAME OF THRONES), daughter Zoey (Adelaide Kane) and son Charlie (Max Burkholder). Daddy made big money selling security systems to rich families just like theirs in anticipation of the Purge. The family sits around the TV to celebrate the beginning of the news coverage—like it’s New Year’s Eve or something—and the big lockdown of their home. All seems well in SandinLand.

That is until Charlie sees a wounded man (Edwin Hodge) desperately seeking shelter from a gang of psychos. The kid can’t just sit by and let the guy be murdered, so he opens the doors to let him in. James immediately locks things up again, but there’s suddenly a stranger loose in their house. Meanwhile, up in Zoey’s room, her boyfriend Henry (Tony Oller) snuck into the house before lockup, so he can reason with her dad about their relationship (James thinks he’s too old for Zoey). His logic being “He can’t throw me out, he has to listen to me.”

Oh yeah, and there’s a gang of psychos outside, banging on the door to be let in. Seems that they were hunting the wounded man for sport, this being Purge Night and all, and since they’re completely within their rights to do it, they are rather ticked off that someone has spoiled their fun. So they offer the Sandin family a choice. Send the wounded guy out to them so they can finish having fun. Or they’ll force their way in and kill everyone.

The psychos look like preppy Ivy League college kids wearing creepy masks and carrying various weapons. They’re led by  led by a “Polite Stranger” (that’s what they call him in the credits) played by Rhys Wakefield. He’s so psycho, he kills one of his own friends for speaking out of turn during the negotiations. Polite Stranger is also the only one of the gang who removes his mask, so we can see his leering, preppy-boy face.

So what’s going to happen? Is the family going to track down that homeless guy and send him out to be butchered or will they stand and fight? Can the bad guys really get inside when the house has state-of-the-art security that James had installed himself? And what about Henry, will he finally earn James’s respect and the right to date his daughter?

All this and more will be revealed when you see THE PURGE.

(Sound of microwave beeping in another room)

LS: Sounds like Michael is almost ready with that popcorn. I’d really like to hear his opinion of this movie. Hey Michael, get in here.

Anyway, like I said before, I thought the concept of “The Purge” was kind of cool. This is not the first time we have seen something like this, of course. This film has elements of “siege on a house” movies like STRAW DOGS (1971) and ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 (1976) — both of which have been remade in recent years—the teenage thugs are reminiscent of the Droogies in Stanley Kubrick’s classic, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (1971); the creepy masks and sense of mystery and menace are right out of THE STRANGERS (2008), and even the concept of the Purge itself is similar to the sacrifices made by the kids in THE HUNGER GAMES, (2012) by just as merciless a government (which in turn brings to mind Shirley Jackson’s classic story, “The Lottery,” and the Japanese movie BATTLE ROYALE, 2000). As I said, it’s not a completely new idea, but it’s a clever spin on it, and it works well here.

(Looks around)

LS: Where the hell is Michael with that popcorn? And he better have stocked up on beer, too.

(LS wanders down the hall and downstairs, heading toward the kitchen. When he gets there, there’s no sign of Michael. And the microwave is still beeping)

LS: Michael, where are yooooou?

That’s funny. (Pops open the microwave and starts eating the popcorn)

Anyway, back to the review. Director James DeMonaco previously gave us the drama LITTLE NEW YORK (2009), which also starred Hawke, and was previously a screenwriter, one of his scripts in fact being the 2005 remake of ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 (coincidence?). DeMonaco does a good job building suspense here, and maintaining it throughout. I thought this movie was a solid piece of filmmaking.

The score, by Nathan Whitehead, is also quite good, helping to set the tone and build suspense throughout. (Barry Lee Dejasu interviews Whitehead for his Scoring Horror column tomorrow).

The cast is very good, beginning with Hawke and Headey. I was on the fence about Hawke for a long time, but he’s been in a string of interesting films lately. And it’s ironic that the same day THE PURGE comes out, his other new film BEFORE MIDNIGHT, a smart romantic drama by Richard Linklater, which could not be more different, also opens in several cities. The man is on a roll.

Even the kids are good in this one, although I was cursing when Charlie unlocked the house so the wounded guy could get in. I know he thought he was doing the right thing, but to put his whole family at risk, I wanted to strangle the brat. His is the first of several moral decisions these characters have to make, though.

Rhys Wakefield is also really good as the “Polite Stranger.” He has an almost Joker-like quality to him that reminded me of the late Heath Ledger. Wakefield is suitably creepy here, and I wanted more of his character, and I wanted to know more about him. But there isn’t a lot of room for character development when everything hits the fan.

I also like how THE PURGE deals with issues of class and race. In this future of lower crime, there’s also more poverty, and the evening news debates whether the Purge was thought up to legally wipe out people that society didn’t want. And by society, they obviously mean “rich society.” The wounded man who is given sanctuary in the Sandins’ house is black, homeless and, judging by the dog tags around his neck, a veteran of one of those wars we no longer have in this alternate future, and yet he’s hunted like an animal by privileged preppies in Halloween masks.

I really enjoyed this one. It was well-acted, suspenseful, thoughtful and shined a light on the ugly side of human nature. That’s what good horror is supposed to do! Show us the sides of humanity we would rather not see.

I give this one three and a half knives.

Now would normally be the time when Michael pipes in with his lame-brained review of the movie, but he’s clearly not around. I bet he’s playing some kind of prank on me.

(A MAN enters the kitchen, wearing a creepy mask and holding a machete)

MASKED MAN: It’s Purge night. Time for you to meet your maker.

LS: Who the hell are you, and how did you get in here. And what did you do with Michael?

MASKED MAN: Who’s Michael? I snuck in through a cellar window that wasn’t covered up. And now, say good-bye (raises machete)

LS: And me without all my weapons. Seems like I left them all upstairs…Uh oh.

MASKED MAN: Here I come. Ready or not.

(LS grins and pulls out an AK-47)

LS: Except for this one. (Blows the guy away)

LS: Hey, that was fun. I hope more people sneak in!

(MA enters the room)

MA: What’s going on in here? What’s all the racket? I leave you alone for a couple of minutes and you’re already getting into mischief.

(Looks at the dead guy in the mask)

MA: How did he get in here?

LS: He said something about an uncovered cellar window?

MA: Uh, oh, I better go check that out.

LS: Hey, wait a minute. I just finished my review of THE PURGE. Do you have anything to add?

MA: I was so busy preparing for Purge Night, I didn’t have time to see it.

LS: You’re kidding me.

MA (shrugs): Oops.

LS (looks at the clock): Well, my review is over and there’s still 10 hours to go of the Purge. I just thought of something. I can’t go outside to cause mayhem, but that doesn’t mean I can’t have fun. I’m in here, after all, with you.

MA: Umm…what are you getting at?

LS: You’re it. I’m going to count to 100 and then come looking for you with a chainsaw. Won’t that be fun? So after you check the cellar, make sure to hide real good!

(MA presses the “UNLOCK” button)

MA: I suddenly remembered how to let you go outside.

LS: Hurray!

(LS then proceeds to strap on guns and knives and chainsaws and swords and rocket launchers and battleaxes, and then topples over when he tries to go outside)

-END-

© Copyright 2013 by L.L. Soares

LL Soares gives THE PURGE~three and a half knives.

Leave A Comment »

THE CALL (2013)

Posted in "So Bad They're Good" Movies, 2013, Cinema Knife Fights, Melodrama, Serial Killers, Thrillers, Women in Jeopardy with tags , , , , on March 18, 2013 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: THE CALL (2013)
By Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

thecall_1

(THE SCENE: The trunk of a moving car. MICHAEL ARRUDA is trapped and talking on his cell phone to a 911 operator, who just happens to be L.L. SOARES)

LS: So what seems to be your problem?

MA: For starters, I dialed 911 and you answered the phone.

LS:  Tell me your problem or I’ll friggin hang up on you.  I don’t have all day. Happy Hour starts soon.

MA:  I’ve been abducted and I’m in the trunk of a car.

LS: Sure you are. Why don’t you just admit that you didn’t want to review the movie this week.

MA: No, I’m serious. You’ve got to help me.

LS: Hold on a minute, I’ve got another call.

(LS puts MA on hold for a few minutes, listening to the Muzak)

LS: You still there?

MA: Of course I’m still here. Where am I going to go?

LS: Well, since you’re such a captive audience, I might as well start this week’s Cinema Knife Fight review of the new Halle Berry movie THE CALL.

MA: I guess I don’t have a choice.

LS: No you don’t.

THE CALL is the new thriller starring Halle Berry. She plays Jordan Turner, a 911 operator who, early on in the movie, gets a call from a teenage girl who is home alone and a prowler is trying to break into her house. Jordan tries to talk the girl through it until the police can get there, but she makes a bad mistake. When the call gets disconnected, she calls the girl back. The prowler, who appeared to be leaving, stopped in his tracks when the phone rang and was able to track his victim down because of it.

MA: Not a smart move on Jordan’s part.

LS:  When the girl, Leah Templeton (Evie Louise Thompson), is found dead days later, Jordan is horrified and feels like it’s her fault that she wasn’t able to save the girl.

MA:  Well, it kinda was.  I’m surprised she didn’t lose her job.  She should have at least been suspended for a while.

LS:  When another girl calls her six months later, a victim of the same serial killer, Jordan is determined not to let this one end the same way.

MA:  Hmm, six months later, and Jordan is there to take the call again. Gee, that’s believable!

LS:  Well, a newbie operator gets the call first, and Jordon takes it over. If Jordan had been the one to originally answer it, then I would have found it unbelievable. As it is, the fact that she happens to be nearby when the new girl gets the call strains credibility enough. There’s a whole “hive” here of operators, and calls can be answered by anyone. But enough of that.

MA:  So, you find the fact that she just “happens” to be standing nearby when the new girl gets the call more believable?  I still don’t buy it.

LS:  How are you holding up in there? Must be pretty scary trapped in the trunk of a moving car, with a violent serial killer driving you to your certain death. I’m sorry I’m not doing more to help the police find you.

MA: Sure you are.

LS: You’re not scared at all?

MA: It is a little cramped in here. But I’ll live.

LS: You sure are taking this well. I’m proud of you.

MA: Can we get back to the review?

LS: Sure.

This second victim is Casey Welson, played by Abigail Breslin (LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE herself, from the 2006 indie favorite). When Casey first calls 911 after being abducted and locked in the trunk by a psycho, she’s pretty much hysterical. But Jordan is able to calm her down and tell her various ways to draw attention to herself (like kicking out a tail light to make a hole in the trunk she can see out of), so the cops have a better shot at finding her. One big obstacle is that the phone Casey is calling on is a disposable one and doesn’t have the chip in it that can be tracked by GPS.

At one point, an innocent fellow driver, Alan Denado (Michael Imperioli), notices something odd about the trunk and tells the driver. This turns out to be a very bad time to be a Good Samaritan (and it’s interesting to see Imperioli, who was so great as tough guy Christopher on the classic HBO series THE SOPRANOS, playing a victim this time around).

The thing is, Jordan isn’t kidding around when she tells Casey she is going to save her. This time, Jordan refuses to let it go. Like she tells Casey “We’re both Capricorns and Capricorns fight.”

MA:  And again that’s just not believable.  I simply don’t see a 911 operator becoming personally involved with a victim, and to think that Jordan would actually become more involved than the police later on in the movie is ludicrous.  Then again, based upon the incompetent police officers in this one, I’m not surprised she takes matters into her own hands.

LS: It’s a movie, Michael. And a dumb “thriller,” at that. Of course Jordan is more effective than the complete police force. It’s called suspension of disbelief. Then again, for SOD to work, you have to be firmly rooted in the story, and obviously you weren’t.

One interesting aspect of this movie is how we get a behind-the-scenes look at “the Hive,” the headquarters where a bunch of 911 operators work. We see firsthand how stressful the job is (they even have a “Quiet Room” to go to when they’ve had an especially stressful call). Also, even though they do what they can during 911 calls, most of the time they will never know the outcome of what they do. They won’t know whether a person will be saved by the police or not. Which ratchets up the stress factor even further, especially when Jordan feels that she fails Leah in the first call.

MA:  I liked this aspect of the movie. I definitely enjoyed the behind-the-scenes look at the 911 headquarters, mostly because it was a refreshing locale and interesting profession that we simply don’t see very often in the movies.

However, the screenplay by Richard D’Ovidio doesn’t finish the job.  It gives us a compelling setting, the “Hive,” a place ripe for a serious thriller, but then throws us into one contrived situation after another, resulting in a story that is anything but riveting.

For example, before the second phone call, Berry’s Jordan is leading a tour for some newbie 911 operators, and they just happen to be standing near the young operator who takes Casey’s call, and then this young operator has a panic attack, sitting there crying, “What do I do?  What do I do?”  What the hell kind of training does this place have?

LS: She’s new, and it’s not a normal call. And Casey is in panic mode. It’s believable that a new operator would panic as well. Even if there are clear rules, you’re bound to get flustered when you’re in an extremely emotional situation and you’re new at it. So that didn’t bother me.

MA:  She’s a 911 operator!  She can’t handle an emotional call?  That’s nuts!

LS: Your level of empathy is astounding.

The-Call-Movie-Poster

MA: So, anyway, Jordan takes over the call, which is simply a contrivance to have her deal with the same serial killer again.  I didn’t buy this at all. Had this story been about one phone call, or had the two calls not been related, then those things I could believe.  This set-up is right out of a good old-fashioned soap opera.

LS:  Berry is actually pretty good here. Most times I like her as an actress, but she has had a lot of ups and downs in her career. THE CALL is not A-level material, but she does a good job with it.

MA:  Yes, I enjoyed Berry’s performance as well.  It’s just too bad the story didn’t give her character a realistic way to deal with her pain.

LS:  Breslin is also good as Casey, who alternates between being in a complete panic and being strong.

MA:  Agreed.  And my favorite scene in the movie is where Breslin’s Casey asks if the 911 call is recorded, and then, thinking she’s going to die, leaves an emotional message for her mother.  It’s the one scene in the movie that grabbed me on an emotional level, that worked on all cylinders, and it’s superbly acted by Breslin and Berry.

LS:  The highlight of the movie for me, though, was Michael Eklund as the uber-creepy killer, Michael Foster. Eklund does a terrific job as a volatile guy who’s behavior is often unpredictable. And I liked his strange facial expressions throughout, too. Whether he’s stabbing someone with a screwdriver, setting a gas station attendant on fire, or putting fresh scalps on mannequin heads, Eklund is very unsettling, and exudes menace.

MA:  I completely disagree here.  I couldn’t get into Eklund’s performance at all, and I thought his killer Michael Foster was one of the worst parts of the movie.  He wears this crazed expression on his face that is supposed to be scary, but to me he looked more like a deer in the headlights.

LS: I think the “deer in the highlights” comparison is apt. But it worked for me. I thought he seemed like a guy constantly in turmoil because of his inner demons.

MA: I thought he seemed like a guy who needed to use the bathroom real bad.

LS:  He wasn’t calm and collected and sure of himself. He was completely a slave to his compulsions, and it got him into one bad situation after another. It’s amazing he was ever successful at this abducting-and-killing-people stuff.

MA: I’ll say!  He kills everyone in his path, leaving a trail of carnage right up to his doorstep.  I thought serial killers were supposed to be clever and elusive.  He might as well be wearing a sign on his back that reads “I’m a serial killer.”

LS: Well, there are reasons why he does those things….but, yeah. He’s not a smart guy. Not by any stretch. But who says you have to belong to Mensa to be a serial killer? If this was his first time abducting someone, it would have been more believable, but he’s done this before, and somehow gotten away with it. Even without Halle Berry on his trail, this guy was not destined for a long career as a serial killer. Yet, despite that, I found his performance very entertaining.

MA: And getting back to the screenplay, Eklund’s character is poorly developed.  We eventually see some silly background story involving his sister which is supposed to explain why he does what he does, but it’s touched upon so briefly it doesn’t resonate.

I thought the killer Michael Foster in this one was a huge disappointment.

LS:  Whoever created the movie trailer for THE CALL didn’t do the movie much of a favor.

MA:  That’s an understatement!

LS:  In the trailer, pretty much the entire story is revealed, and you almost feel, after watching it, that you’ve already seen the movie. I hate these kinds of trailers. After seeing the trailer for THE CALL several times over the last couple of months, I was dreading seeing the actual movie, because I figured I knew what was going to happen, and I thought I’d be pretty bored. Surprisingly, this wasn’t the case at all.

MA:  What?  Are you serious?  I have to hear this.

LS:  THE CALL starts with that first phone call with Leah right off the bat, and moves at a brisk pace throughout. Even though the trailer did give away some spoilers, I was so engrossed in the actual movie that I just sat back and enjoyed it.

MA:  Again, I have to completely disagree here.  The trailer shows both phone calls, both confrontations that killer Michael Foster has with people who try to save Casey, and not only that, but it shows how Foster dispenses with these people. The trailer also showed the tricks Casey used to draw attention to herself in the trunk, and showed Berry’s Jordon telling her to do these things. It also showed us that Jordon will at some point confront the serial killer face-to-face.

What the hell is left?  The outcome—and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out who’s going to live or who’s going to die in this one.

It was a horrible trailer that completely ruined the movie for me.  Honestly, sitting in the theater, I felt as if I were watching the movie for the second time.  On the other hand, even if I hadn’t seen the trailer, I still would not have liked this movie because I found it so unbelievable and contrived.

LS: I am not arguing at all about the trailer. The trailer was horrible. It gave everything away. It was three minutes of nothing but spoilers! But, that’s not the movie’s fault. The movie is a separate entity, and I liked it. Whoever did the trailer was an idiot; it left nothing to the imagination. How about making a trailer that keeps the audience in suspense about what is going to happen next, so we actually want to go see it?

For me, THE CALL was a guilty pleasure. I’m not saying its a brilliant movie. But for the time I was in the movie theater, I enjoyed myself.

MA:  It’s actually kind of a dumb movie.

LS: Agreed. The screenplay, by Richard D’Ovidio, can be ludicrous at times, but somehow that doesn’t keep it from being entertaining. This is probably in large part to director Brad Anderson, who previously gave us movies like SESSION 9 (2001), a haunted mental asylum movie that I thought was underrated when it came out, and THE MACHINIST (2004). He also worked on some great television shows like HOMICIDE: LIFE ON THE STREET, THE WIRE, and THE SHIELD.

MA:  I will agree with you here about director Brad Anderson.  I thought he employed some nifty camerawork in this one.  I enjoyed the tight camerawork on Casey in the trunk of the car, although honestly, even these scenes could have been better.  While I certainly got the feel for the terror Casey felt being abducted by a serial killer, I never quite got any real sense of claustrophobia.  In fact, being stuck in a trunk doesn’t seem to bother Casey at all.  It should have.

LS:  Speaking of which, how are you doing?  You must be feeling pretty claustrophobic by now.

MA: No, I’m fine.

LS:  You mean you don’t feel as if you can’t breathe, as if the walls are closing in around you, as if you can’t stand the pressure any longer and just need to blow your brains out?  You know, if you look hard enough, you might find a weapon in there to use on yourself.

MA:  What the hell kind of a 911 operator are you, anyway?

LS:  The Cinema Knife Fight kind!  (laughs).

MA:  I think I’ll hang up and call for a pizza instead.

LS:  You stay on the line!  We have a movie to review!

MA:  Sure, although a pizza sounds mighty appetizing right now.

LS:  You can eat when we’re finished.  Where was I?  Oh yeah.

Even when THE CALL is predictable, Anderson keeps it riveting throughout, which pretty much won me over. After that awful trailer, I dreaded seeing the movie. But once I actually sat down and got into it, I enjoyed THE CALL much more than I thought I would. It’s goofy, but it’s fun.

Also, concerning the very last scene in this movie. I didn’t find  it believable at all, and yet I have to admit, I liked it.

I give it two and a half knives.

MA:  I’d give it a re-write.  I disagree with you on this one, and I’m surprised you liked it as much as you did.  For me, the biggest weakness here is the writing.  So many things throughout this film just didn’t ring true.

Let’s start with the police.  I kept thinking of those scenes from old police TV shows where the police would instruct the grieving parent to keep the kidnapper on the line so they could trace the call, and no matter how long the poor person kept the bad guy on the phone, the scene would invariably end the same way, with the now cliché line “He wasn’t on the line long enough for us to trace the call.”

In THE CALL, Halley Berry’s Jordan instructs Abigail Breslin’s Casey to kick out the tail light and pour paint onto the freeway so someone can see it.  We cut to scenes of police helicopters flying up above, and police cars racing on the freeway, but the only result is the guy in the police helicopter saying “We don’t see any white paint,” which prompted me to ask, “Are you looking at the road?”  I mean, there are police everywhere, and yet not a single officer ever gets close to Foster’s car.  They even have the license plate number of the car, and they still don’t see him!

The police are always two steps behind serial killer Michael Foster, which has less to do with the ingenuity of Foster and much more to do with shoddy police work.  When the police learn where Foster lives, they send a gazillion cars racing to his home, as if he’s going to be there.  And then, while Casey is still trapped in the trunk of the car, they slowly and methodically take their time going through the house looking for clues.  Now, sure, on one level this makes sense.  I mean, they have to find as much information about Foster as they possibly can.  I get that.  But I certainly would have preferred scenes of the police frantically working to find Casey out there on the freeway.

Later, when the police discover the location of a second property owned by Foster, this one in a desolate location, they race there and ultimately deduce that it’s a false lead, that it’s abandoned and Foster and Casey are not there.  Yet, Jordan later goes there herself, and finds major clues the police overlooked.  I’m supposed to believe that the police couldn’t find these things, but 911 operator Jordan could?  I just don’t buy that.

And serial killer Michael Foster is nothing short of an idiot.  Like I already said, he kills everyone in his way as opposed to quietly eluding them.  Nice way not to attract attention to yourself, buddy!

Then, he’s got Casey in the trunk of his car, and she tries to escape, multiple times.  For some reason, it never occurs to him that he might want to tie her up.  Even worse, at one point, he discovers the cell phone on her, and—get this—he doesn’t take it!  He puts her back in the trunk with the phone.  What kind of a dolt does that?  A poorly written one!

That’s not to say I hated THE CALL, because I didn’t.  I definitely enjoyed the performances by Halle Berry and Abigail Breslin, and I liked the setting, the 911 headquarters and enjoyed getting an inside look into the way they operate.  But that’s about it.

Had this story had the right gimmick, it could have used the 911 setting as a springboard to an innovative compelling thriller, but unfortunately, all the drama here stems from situations that are so contrived and forced they seem like plots lifted from some very dated and very poorly written 70s TV shows.  I half expected Charlie’s Angels to show up and give Halle Berry a hand.

I give it two knives.

LS: So we both agree it was dumb. It was contrived. But it was well-acted, and I found it suspenseful. We’re not arguing over whether the script was dopey or not; we’re arguing over whether or not it works as entertainment. And I found it very entertaining.

MA:  Hey, wait a minute.  I think the car just stopped.  I think I hear the guy getting out of the car.

LS:  At least he had the courtesy to wait until we finished the review.

MA:  He’s opening the trunk.

(Trunk opens, and MA looks up and sees LS standing outside trunk with a cell phone to his ear.)

MA:  Huh?  You were driving the car?

LS:  I have to admit, the idea of doing a review with you stuck in a trunk was just too good to pass up. And you didn’t see me coming at all when I chloroformed you.

MA:  Very funny.  Now, that we’re done, I’m looking forward to—.

(LS slams trunk shut.)

LS: Why spoil a good thing?

MA:  Hey!  Are you going to let me out of here?  I can’t breathe you know!

LS: You didn’t seem too concerned before.

(To camera) Don’t worry.  He can breathe.  And if he looks hard enough he’ll find the button which will pop open the trunk.  Anyway, we’ll see you all again next week.  (Walks away).

MA:  Gee, I wonder what this button does.  (Presses button, and the car starts to roll. Camera pans to show the car is on a cliff. The car goes over the edge.)

LS:  Woopsie! Wrong button.

MA (unseen):  Hey, the trunk popped open!

—END—

© Copyright 2013 by Michael Arruda & L.L Soares

Rate the Rating: This one is rated R for language (just a few instances) and a little bit of gore. No major bloodletting. No nudity. In other words, it might as well have been rated PG-13.

Michael Arruda gives THE CALL ~ two knives!

LL Soares gives THE CALL ~two and a half knives.

1 Comment »

SIDE EFFECTS (2013)

Posted in 2013, Cinema Knife Fights, Compelling Cinema, Medical Experiments!, Plot Twists, Psychological Thrillers, Steven Soderbergh, Thrillers with tags , , , , , , , on February 19, 2013 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: SIDE EFFECTS (2013)
By Michael Arruda & L.L. Soares

sideeffects1

(THE SCENE: A hospital room.  MICHAEL ARRUDA , wearing a white lab coat and holding a chart, addresses a young woman.)

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  My chart says you’re feeling depressed.  Is that true?

WOMAN:  You’re the one holding the chart.  Shouldn’t you know what the chart says?

MA:  No, I meant, is it true that you’re depressed?

WOMAN:  Yes.  I’m depressed something awful.  It’s so bad that I have trouble getting out of bed in the morning.

MA:  Are you married?

WOMAN:  Yes.  Here’s a picture of my husband.  (Hands MA a picture of a shirtless hunk of a man.)

MA (looking at picture of hunky husband):  No wonder you have trouble getting out of bed in the morning.

WOMAN:  Can you help me?  Can you give me some pills or something?

MA:  Well, I’m supposed to, but we’re such a pill dependent society, I really wish we could try some natural remedies first.

WOMAN:  Do these natural remedies work?

MA: Well, no.  But these pills, they just have so many— side effects. (CUE dramatic music.)

WOMAN:  The last pills I took made me drowsy and I couldn’t stay awake.

MA:  Oh, that won’t happen.  My partner and associate can take care of that for you.

(Door bursts open, and L.L. SOARES enters the examination room, also wearing a lab coat.)

L.L. SOARES (looks at woman):  Is this the patient?

MA:  Yes, she’s afraid the pills will make her sleepy.

LS (leans closely into her face):  Look at me.  Take a good look at my face! (contorts his face into a horrifying scowl, causing the woman to recoil in terror.)  If you find yourself feeling sleepy, you’re gonna see my face!  Do you want to see my face?

WOMAN:  N-no.

LS: The second you start nodding off, I’ll be in your room, and you’re gonna have to deal with the likes of me!  Are you sleepy now?

WOMAN:  No!

LS:  Are the pills gonna make you sleepy later?

WOMAN:  Nooo!!!

LS: Good.  You’re cured.  You can go home now.  We’ll bill your insurance.

WOMAN:  Gee, thanks.  (Exits)

LS:  I should’ve been a doctor!

MA (shaking his head):  No, you shouldn’t.  Anyway, that was our last patient of the day.  Shall we review today’s movie?

LS:  Why, of course!  You start.  I need to wash up for this afternoon’s operation.  (starts washing blood off his hands.)

MA:  Operation?  Anyway, no matter.  Welcome folks, to another edition of CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT.  Today we’re reviewing SIDE EFFECTS (2013), the latest thriller from director Steven Soderbergh, and rumor has it this will be Soderbergh’s last movie, as it’s been said that he plans to retire after this.

Not sure why.  Soderbergh’s not an old guy. He just turned 50.

LS: I think he has other interests and wants to pursue things other than movies. Which is too bad, because he’s so good at it.

MA:  I don’t know.  I’m hot and cold with Soderbergh’s body of work, mostly cold.

LS:  Not everything he does it great. But he does so many different kinds of movies—he’s just really interesting. You know you’re not going to always get the same old thing with Soderbergh.

Oh, and some people may notice that SIDE EFFECTS came out in theaters a week ago in most places. We would have reviewed it earlier, but we were buried under several feet of snow last weekend in New England, and some of us even lost power.

MA:   But you can’t keep a good Cinema Knife Fighter down!  So, here we are a week later with our SIDE EFFECTS review.

LS: Anything, so long as I don’t have to review BEAUTIFUL CREATURES.

MA: SIDE EFFECTS (2013) opens with a young woman Emily Taylor (Rooney Mara) getting ready to re-start her life with her husband Martin (Channing Tatum, MAGIC MIKE himself), who has just been released from prison after serving a sentence for insider trading.  She should be ecstatic, right?  But she’s not.  In fact, it’s quite the opposite, as she finds herself dealing with serious depression, so serious that she attempts to kill herself by driving her car into a cement wall.

LS: Ouch!

MA: In the emergency room, where oddly, she has only received minor scratches and bruises, she meets psychiatrist Jonathan Banks (Jude Law).  When she tells him about her depression, he agrees to treat her.  He prescribes an antidepressant medication for her, and when that doesn’t work, he decides to learn more about her history by contacting her former psychiatrist, Dr. Victoria Siebert (Catherine Zeta-Jones).  Banks also happens to be a paid consultant for a new anti-depressant medication on the market, and he eventually puts Emily on this new medication.

One of the drawbacks of the medication is it makes Emily sleepy, and she sleepwalks.  No big deal, until the day when in a sleepwalking stupor she stabs and kills her husband.

LS: Oops, sorry honey!

MA: From this point, the movie switches gears dramatically.  First it deals with how responsible Emily may or not be for the crime, given her mental and drug induced state, and then, when the story breaks that Dr. Banks was the doctor who prescribed the medication for her, it moves towards the pressure Banks feels when suddenly everyone and their grandmother is painting him as an irresponsible psychiatrist.  Banks loses his job, his consulting gig, and eventually his wife and stepson leave him.

Finally, the film swerves yet again when Banks begins to investigate all that has happened, and begins to discover that things aren’t as they seem where his former patient is concerned.

LS: Yeah, this one definitely took some turns I wasn’t expecting. The first half or so of the movie seemed almost like a Public Service Announcement about the way this country over-prescribes medications for illnesses like depression, and how doctors are enticed by offers of big money to push specific brands. Also, you know those commercials for medications where they list side effects that go on for half an hour? That seemed like the inspiration for this movie. With all the side effects everything seems to have—it’s a wonder we trust any drugs at all.

sideeffects2

MA: SIDE EFFECTS is a thriller that had me early on but lost me midway through as it became more and more convoluted with an intricate plot that just didn’t work for me.  I liked the initial workings of the story, when it seemed this would be a tale about medicine gone wrong, and just who bears the responsibility for such a thing: the patient, the doctor who should have known better, who should have known exactly what it was he was prescribing, or the drug companies who produced the drug in the first place.  These thoughts are firmly rooted in reality.  We really are a drug dependent society, and this plot, had it remained firm to its roots, would have been a compelling drama.

But screenwriter Scott Z. Burns, who also penned the screenplay for CONTAGION (2011), another Soderbergh thriller I didn’t like all that much, takes it in a different direction.  People suddenly have sinister ulterior motives, and these motivations and actions become more and more farfetched, to the point where near the end of the movie, I really didn’t believe everything that was going on.  The story definitely loses credibility towards the end, and as a result, its edge.

LS: Yeah, we’re in total disagreement on this one. The first half – for me – was kind of a drag. I mean, Emily’s story was kind of interesting, but overall, I felt like I’d seen this kind of thing before, and I was worried it might become a preachy diatribe against the pharmaceutical industry. That didn’t seem all that compelling to me.

Then, when things start to change and we realize there is so much more to the story—all of this deception and the twists—and it’s really a completely different kind of movie than we thought – that’s when I started to perk and the movie hooked me. I wanted to see what was going to happen next, and how Jude Law’s Dr. Banks was going to recover his life and reputation after such a devastating event.

MA:  I didn’t find it preachy at all.  I found it interesting.  I guess I was enjoying the drama and wish it had played out that way, rather than turning into a thriller, which I found less realistic.

LS: I didn’t say it was preachy. I said, it seemed to be going in that direction. Then it didn’t.

MA: Well, another problem I had with SIDE EFFECTS is I didn’t like the characters.  Dr. Banks is probably the most likeable character in the film, but he grows less likeable as the movie goes on, as the methods he uses when he tries to clear his name are just as bad as those used by the people he’s trying to expose.

LS: I found him believable, because he based his decisions on logical reasons. His motivations made sense. This kind of thing could ruin his career completely, and yet, instead of just accepting his downfall, he is determined to do something about it, and I found that intriguing. I liked that he wasn’t completely likable. It made him seem more human to me.

MA: Emily isn’t likeable at all, and it’s hard to feel sympathy for her husband Martin who was convicted of insider trading and looks for all intents and purposes as if he’s about to follow the same path yet again.

LS: I think she’s likable early on, and kind of sad. She doesn’t stay as sympathetic, but I liked Rooney Mara’s performance.

MA: I agree with you there.  I liked Rooney Mara’s performance too.

And Jude Law is fine as Dr. Banks, but I enjoyed him more early on when I liked his character better.  Once he starts investigating Emily and her motives, he fluctuates between being obsessed and crazed. It’s hard to get excited about his efforts when he teeters on being psychologically imbalanced himself.

LS: But by seeming unbalanced it added to the dilemma. Is he a trustworthy protagonist? Should we be rooting for this guy? I liked that question mark, and I think Jude Law is, for the most part, a rather underrated actor. He’s good here.

MA: I enjoyed Rooney Mara best, and thought her performance as Emily was the strongest one in the movie.  It’s really difficult to read her.  Early on, she’s sympathetic, but later, like Law’s Dr. Banks, we’re uncertain what to make of her, and she’s less likeable because of it.  Still, it’s a strong performance, and while it’s not as compelling as her work in THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO (2011) she succeeds in creating in Emily a woman who at first seems unstable but later is revealed to be very calculating.

LS: Yeah, let’s not say too much about that, but Mara is an actress to watch. I loved her in THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, and this role was very different, and I liked seeing her play someone so removed from Lisbeth Salander.

MA: On the other hand, Catherine Zeta-Jones’ performance as Dr. Victoria Siebert did nothing for me.  I didn’t buy into her character or her motivations.

LS: I disagree. I think Zeta-Jones is really a master when it comes to playing stone-cold ice queens who obviously want to control everything around them. I didn’t think her character was sympathetic, but then, she wasn’t meant to be. She was meant to be formidable, and in the scenes where Dr. Banks butts heads with her, Dr. Siebert is a believably formidable foe.

MA: She’s a corpse.  That’s how much life she gave her character.  I saw and heard her motivations, but I didn’t believe them.

Channing Tatum barely makes an impression as Emily’s husband Martin.  If anything, he succeeds in creating a character I didn’t like very much.

LS: I think Tatum is very likable as an actor, and I think that comes through here as well. But you’re right, he’s not given much to do, and it’s a mostly underwritten role.

MA: This movie did remind me somewhat of Soderbergh’s earlier effort CONTAGION.  Like that movie, there’s a disconnect here that prevents it from really resonating.  There’s also something sterile about the whole production, like a hospital room, that extinguishes any sort of passion one might feel towards its story and its characters.

LS: I didn’t see CONTAGION, but I think Soderbergh is a very capable filmmaker, whether he’s making multi-character blockbusters like TRAFFIC or smaller, tightly-wound thrillers like SIDE EFFECTS. I think he’s a really gifted director, and I hope he reconsiders his “early retirement” from the medium. I think the sometimes “sterile” feel of the movie actually added a tone and feel to the proceedings that worked for me. These are medical professionals who want to keep things “sterile” and safe for themselves, so that didn’t bother me.

MA: I enjoyed the first third of SIDE EFFECTS, but after that, the film started to lose me, as its plot became more convoluted and less believable.

LS: Yep, I think the opposite. I found the first half of the movie to be functional, but not very exciting. When things start to slowly reveal themselves, I found myself drawn into this smart, well-plotted thriller. I think a lot of our readers would really like this movie.

MA: I still say that SIDE EFFECTS starts out promising but doesn’t last, and like a medicine that doesn’t work, you won’t want to stay with it very long.

LS: I would prefer to describe it as a strong, effective medication that takes a little bit to get into your system and work. But once it’s activated, it keeps you glued to the screen.

MA: I give it two knives.

LS: I give it three knives.

MA: So that’s done. What should we do now?

LS: I don’t know about you, but I’m getting the hell out of here. Last time I checked, impersonating doctors is frowned upon.

MA (looks around):  Yeah, let’s get out of here.

(They run toward the elevator)

—END—

© Copyright 2013 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Michael Arruda gives SIDE EFFECTS  ~ two knives!

LL Soares gives SIDE EFFECTS ~three knives.

Leave A Comment »

ARGO (2012)

Posted in 2012, Based on a True Story, Michael Arruda Reviews, Thrillers with tags , , , , on October 21, 2012 by knifefighter

ARGO (2012)
Movie Review by Michael Arruda

BATTLE FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES (1973) helped free American hostages from Iran back in 1980.  Who knew!

That’s just one revelation found in Ben Affleck’s fascinating new thriller, ARGO (2012), a riveting film that tells the improbable tale— based on a true story— of how the U.S. government funded a fake movie in order to rescue six American government workers from Iran in 1980.

ARGO gets off to a strong start.  The film opens as an angry Iranian mob storms the American embassy in Iran, an event which led to American hostages being held for an incredible 444 days.  During these tense moments, six American government workers simply walk out the back door onto the streets of Iran and make their way to the Canadian embassy, where they’re taken in by the Canadian ambassador (Victor Garber).

When U.S. authorities fail to devise an effective escape plan for getting these six Americans safely out of Iran, enter Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) a CIA operative whose expertise is getting people out of harm’s way.  Stuck for ideas, Mendez happens to catch the science fiction movie BATTLE FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES on television, and as he watches Caesar and his friends walk along the futuristic desert landscape, a light bulb goes off in his head.

Mendez presents the idea to his superior Jack O’Donnell (Bryan Cranston) that he’ll go into Iran pretending to be a Hollywood film producer making a science fiction film, under the pretense that he wants to use Iran for scenes of an alien world.  He’ll disguise the six hostages as a film crew, and together they’ll simply walk out of Iran.

It’s a far-fetched idea to be sure, but there just aren’t any others that would work, which prompts O’Donnell to tell his superiors “It’s the best bad idea we have.”  To make it work, Mendez visits his friend in Hollywood, John Chambers (John Goodman), the Academy Award winning make-up artist for the PLANET OF THE APES franchise.  Chambers agrees to help Mendez, their goal being to make their fake movie as realistic as possible, because they know the Iranians will be checking their facts.  Chambers hooks Mendez up with producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin, in yet another scene-stealing performance) who goes all out because, as he says, “If I’m going to make a fake movie, then it’s going to be a fake hit!”

They  settle upon a bad science fiction script for a movie called ARGO, and they even go so far as to hold a press conference where they read through the script, all in attempt to get their film in the Hollywood trade papers to make their fake film as credible as possible.

Mendez travels to Iran to prep the hostages and give them their fake film crew identities.  Things grow more complicated when the Iranians figure out that six hostages are missing, and soon they’re closing in on their location, giving Mendez very little time to make his plan work.

Directed by Ben Affleck, ARGO isn’t quite as intense as his previous directorial efforts THE TOWN (2012) and GONE BABY GONE (2007), but it is more balanced.  It has a suspenseful beginning and end, and sandwiched in the middle is the highly entertaining tale of the making of the fake movie.  As a result, in addition to being a competent thriller, ARGO is also quirky and funny.

The screenplay by Chris Terrio, based on an article by Joshuah Bearman, is a winner.  It’s full of hilarious film business jokes and one-liners, most of them by John Goodman and Alan Arkin.  But it’s also incredibly tense, especially its ending, where Mendez and the hostages have the improbable task of making their way to the Iranian airport, getting past the soldiers, with only their outlandish story to get them through.

The script also does a nice job reminding us how we got into the hostage crisis in the first place, as it gives us some history, how the United States backed the Shah of Iran, how the Shah committed many brutal crimes against the Iranian people, and the event which caused the crisis, when the ill Shah received political asylum from the United States.  The script does this without being preachy.

The acting is terrific.  Ben Affleck is solid as Tony Mendez, in an understated performance.  Sure, at times it looks as if Affleck is a wink away from falling asleep, as he always seems to be squinting, but that’s because Mendez is one cool customer.  Some of the confrontations would make most people wet themselves or worse, but Affleck’s Mendez is rock solid, providing a firm, steady hand as he guides the hostages through the tumultuous streets of America-hating Iran.

Both John Goodman and Alan Arkin steal the show in their supporting roles as John Chambers and Lester Siegel.  It’s nothing we haven’t seen these guys do before, but they’re so good at it.  In a movie as tense as this, their sharp-tongued comedic turns are a welcome relief.  And Bryan Cranston is excellent once again, this time playing Mendez’s CIA boss Jack O’Donnell.  Once more, Cranston looks completely different.  He seems to change his look in every movie he’s in.

The performances of the six hostages are also top-notch, and Victor Garber is also very good as Ken Taylor, the Canadian Ambassador.

The film also successfully captures the feel of 1979-80, as the clothes, hairstyles, and soundtrack all heavily reflect the era.

I’m hot and cold with Ben Affleck, and in recent years I’ve enjoyed him more, as I liked both THE TOWN and GONE BABY GONE.  I also really enjoyed his performance as George Reeves in HOLLYWOODLAND (2006).  These recent successes have helped me forget films like DAREDEVIL (2003) and THE SUM OF ALL FEARS (2002).

With ARGO, Affleck hits a homerun from the director’s chair.  The film is taut and exciting, and in its final act, extremely suspenseful.  Affleck also does a nice job in the lead role, although his directorial effort is certainly more potent than his performance as cool headed Tony Mendez.

For those of us who lived through the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979-1980, ARGO serves as a reminder of a difficult and painful year in our history.

ARGO is a nerve-racking drama that will thrill you as well as make you laugh with its quirky Hollywood subplot.

I give it three and a half knives.

—END–

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda

Michael Arruda gives ARGO ~three and a half knives.

2 Comments »

V/H/S (2012)

Posted in 2012, Anthology Films, Demons, Evil Kids!, Exorcism Movies, Ghosts!, Haunted Houses, Horror, Indie Horror, Killers, LL Soares Reviews, Paranormal, Secrets, Thrillers, Twist Endings, VIOLENCE! with tags , , , , , , , , , on September 25, 2012 by knifefighter

V/H/S (2012)
Movie Review by L.L. Soares

V/H/S is a new anthology horror movie made up of five shorts and a wraparound story. There seem to be a lot of these kinds of movies around lately. The other ones that come to mind are CHILLERAMA (2011) and THE THEATRE BIZARRE (also 2011). Both were mixed bags. But the good thing about anthology movies is that if you don’t like one of the stories, there are more to come, if you just wait. Overall, I tend to enjoy these kinds of movies a lot.

V/H/S is above-average in this regard. For the most part, all of the stories are pretty good. Sure, some are better than others, but I didn’t feel there were any clunkers this time around.

The film starts off with the wraparound story, called “Tape 56.” This ongoing segment is directed by Adam Wingard, who also made POP SKULL (2007), A HORRIBLE WAY TO DIE (2010) and YOU’RE NEXT (2011). Just a word of warning, if you start watching the movie, you might not care a lot for this one. But give it a chance. It just sets up the premise. But the characters involved are kind of despicable.

We are introduced to a bunch of guys led by Gary (Calvin Reeder) who are going around doing awful things and filming it for money. One of the things they do is follow couples and then attack them. The boyfriend is pulled aside and restrained, while the girlfriend is grabbed and her breasts are exposed for the camera. Gary says he gets $50 for each one of these he tapes, and he says he’s done about 25 of them so far. Needless to say, the characters who are supposed to be our point of view for this story start out being unlikable, which may put you off from the get-go.

The set-up is this: these guys are hired to go a house in the middle of the night and get a videotape. It has something to do with blackmail, and the guys say they plan to make copies of the tape, so they can make more money. What exactly is on the tape, we’ll never know. They don’t say (although one character does elude that it might be “a senator having sex on film”), but the job does pay big money—much more than they’re used to. So of course they jump at the chance.

They go to the designated house at the middle of the night, and we’re told there may be someone there, but it’s an old man and he won’t be any trouble. The guys get in, and search the place. They find two things. First of all, they find the old man, and he appears to be dead in a chair, in front of a wall full of television screens. There’s a VCR and a tape in it.

The second thing is that there are lots of videotapes in the house, and the guys aren’t really sure which one they’re supposed to retrieve. So they start looking through them, playing them one after another. And that is the theme of the movie.

The first short film we see is called “Amateur Night.” It is directed by David Bruckner, who also made THE SIGNAL (2007). And right off the bat, it might be my favorite of the bunch. It features more creeps. This time it’s three guys who plan to go to a bar, pick up some girls, and film themselves having sex with them. They’re Shane (Mike Donlan) Patrick (Joe Sykes) and Clint (Drew Sawyer). Clearly there’s a market for this kind of thing. Clint, a nerdy looking guy, wears a pair of glasses that have a camera and microphone built-in. They go to a bar and get sloshed, and find one girl who is willing to go back with them, named Lisa (Jas Sams). At the same time, a spooky girl with big eyes named Lily (Hannah Fierman) is sitting by herself, and Clint starts filming her. She gravitates toward him and keeps saying “I like you.” When they all go back to the hotel room (Lisa and Lily go back with the guys), things get decidedly weird. I have to admit, I wasn’t really surprised by what happened—I kind of saw it coming—but it was so well done, that I didn’t care. I really enjoyed this one. Featuring a great performance by Fierman.

A scary moment from V/H/S.

The second movie is “Second Honeymoon” by Ti West, who gave us HOUSE OF THE DEVIL (2009) and THE INNKEEPERS (2011). It’s about a couple on a road trip—Stephanie (Sophia Takal) and Sam (Joe Swanberg), who are filming it as they go—who stop at a motel. Sometime during the night, someone is in the room with them, watching them sleep, and it goes from there. Not the best of the stories, but a solid little piece from West, who I have to admit, I’m not a big fan of. I actually think he’s feature films are overrated. This one was kind of predictable, but decent, and I liked it better than his feature films that I’ve seen.

“Tuesday the 17th “ by Glenn McQuaid (who also directed 2008’s I SELL THE DEAD) is another one that seems by-the-numbers… at first. Four kids go out to the woods to spend some time in a secluded cabin. But once they get there, things go a little differently than expected. Once again, not something that will blow you away, but a solid little film.

The third one, “The Sick Thing That Happened to Emily When She was Younger,” (great title, by the way!), was directed by “mumblecore” indie director Joe Swanberg (who also acted in Ti West’s installment), and it’s another of my favorites. It features two people talking on Skype. One is a girl named Emily (Helen Rogers) who lives in a haunted apartment. The other is her boyfriend, calling from medical school, where he’s studying. Whenever something weird happens, she calls him so he can be a witness, and at one point we see some ghosts. This is another one, however, where things go much differently than we expect. I liked the weird twist ending a lot.

Finally, we have “10/31/98”, by four guys who go by the name Radio Silence (they are directors Matt Bettinelli-Olpin, Tyler Gillett, Justin Martinez and Chad Villella), three of the guys previously made a series of “interactive adventures” under the name Chad, Matt and Rob. This one is a really good one, too. Four guys jump in a car and go to a house for a Halloween party. They have a friend who always rents a house each Halloween and throws a lavish haunted house party. One guy is dressed as a nanny cam (a teddy bear with a camera), so he’s filming this one. They get there, to find the house empty. When they go exploring, they go up to the attic where they find a weird ceremony going on. They think it’s part of the fun, but it’s not. It’s a real exorcism. And things get scary from there.

The wraparound story pops in between the movies and at the end, as the guys in the house search for more tapes, the dead guy in the chair leaves at various points (we see this, but the guys don’t notice) and there’s a big, scary ending.

Another scary moment from V/H/S.

All in all, a great flick, and while there were three that really blew me away, the other two are pretty good, too. So no bad ones. I actually think V/H/S is pretty satisfying and the best of the new anthology horror films I’ve seen lately. It is currently on cable OnDemand in some areas and will get a limited theatrical release in early October.

This one is definitely worth checking out. I give it four knives.

© Copyright 2012 by L.L. Soares

LL Soares gives V/H/S ~ four knives.

1 Comment »

Me and Lil’ Stevie Get Lost in THE DEAD ZONE (1983)

Posted in 2012, 80s Horror, David Cronenberg, ESP, Killers, Me and Lil' Stevie, Near-Death Experiences, Peter Dudar Reviews, Psychic Powers, Stephen King Movies, Supernatural, Thrillers with tags , , , , , on August 7, 2012 by knifefighter

Me And Lil’ Stevie
Get Lost In
THE DEAD ZONE (1983)
By Peter N. Dudar

(Exterior: Night. Establishing shot of a gazebo on a lakeside park. Camera slowly zooms toward the gazebo, where a grizzly scene is taking place. We see a young girl being charmed by a stranger into thinking she’s safe, until the stranger pulls her close and produces a set of medical scissors, which he handily uses to stab the girl repeatedly. While this is occurring, there is another figure huddled in the far corner of the gazebo watching all of this take place. As the camera zooms in, we see the figure is a man holding a ventriloquist dummy in the form of Master of Horror, Stephen King).

Lil’ Stevie: This is terrible! Somebody should do something about this!

Peter: Welcome, Constant Viewer, to another episode of ME AND LIL’ STEVIE. Today, we’ll be examining the 1983 David Cronenberg film, THE DEAD ZONE.

Lil’ Stevie: Which, I’ll have you know, is based on my 1979 novel…My FIRST book to reach #1 on the New York Times Bestseller list. Ka-Chow! Who’s your daddy?

Peter: It also happens to be the first Castle Rock story. Fans of Stephen King are already aware that Castle Rock is King’s signature fictional town; the Norman Rockwell-esque portrait of Everywhere, USA. Castle Rock and its characters transition over several other novels and short stories, including CUJO and NEEDFUL THINGS. But for now, let’s just focus on THE DEAD ZONE (1983), and the tragic tale of Johnny Smith (Christopher Walken, SLEEPY HOLLOW, 1999). Johnny is a school teacher in Castle Rock, living a perfect, happy life with his plans to marry his sweetheart, fellow schoolteacher Sarah Bracknell (Brooke Adams, INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, 1978). The movie begins with a glimpse of the young couple finishing off their Friday at school, only to slip off on a date to a local amusement park to ride the roller coaster.

Lil’ Stevie: What the hell is going on with Walken’s hair? He looks like the goofiest nerd you ever saw. What a Poindexter! Nobody on the planet would believe a hot chick like Brooke Adams would fall for him.

Peter: No argument here. Walken, fresh from THE DEER HUNTER (1978), is geeked out to the max with his goofy hair and glasses. But he and Sarah look very happy together and very much in love, which is exactly what King and Cronenberg want to convey. That’s the essence of this tragic tale…that fate can be so cruel to one man that everything he loves will be carried away, until the only thing he can tangibly call his own is his privacy, and he can’t even have that after his accident.

Lil’ Stevie: You mean he wets his pants?

(Peter hauls off and slaps Lil’ Stevie, forcing his wooden head to spin around comically on his body).

Lil’ Stevie: What’d you do THAT for?

Peter: You know very well what I meant by “accident.” Johnny and Sarah ride the roller coaster, and in the middle of the ride, he begins to feel a terrible pain in his head. His little joyride gives a touch of foreshadowing of what is to come. The ride is quickly over, and Johnny takes Sarah home. A rainstorm comes out of nowhere, just as he is kissing Sarah goodnight. Sarah offers to let him stay the night, wants him to not go home, but the unusually prudish Johnny tells her that “some things are worth waiting for” before kissing her one last time and heading back to his car…and driving off to meet his true destiny.

Lil’ Stevie: Time-out! In my novel, Johnny’s “destiny” actually begins way back during his childhood, when he fell and bumped his head on this frozen lake we’re standing beside, and had his first bout with extra-sensory perception. If you’ll recall the whole “Wheel of Fortune” incident at the beginning of the book…

Peter: Calm yourself, Lil’ Stevie. As always, we’re not concerned with the book. Your point is duly noted, but the movie is self-sustaining as it is. For us, Johnny’s “gift” is revealed after his accident while driving home in the rainstorm. An 18-wheeler, piloted by a sleepy driver, provides all the bad luck that destiny can throw at him. Johnny’s car crashes into it, and he is consequently plunged into a five-year coma. When he awakens five years later at the Weizak Clinic, he’s lost and confused. He’s baffled over the fact that there’s not a scratch on him, until his parents and his doctor, Sam Weizak (Herbert Lom, Chief Inspector Dreyfus from THE PINK PANTHER films) break the news to him that he was asleep for all that time.

Lil’ Stevie: And that everything he had is now gone. “Sarah’s turned her back on ya…she now cleaves to another man, a husband” his rabidly Christian mother informs him.

Peter: Yeah, what the hell is up with that? Nobody talks like that. It sounds so silly it’s almost irritating. That’s one of my bugaboos about this near-perfect movie: There’s some very bad dialogue in some of the scenes that left me wishing I could rewrite the screenplay. But it’s forgivable. What King is trying to convey is that Johnny’s mother is, indeed, a stern Christian woman.

Lil’ Stevie: It doesn’t quite build the same level of conflict I was trying to create in my novel. I was going for the whole “ESP as a blessing and a curse” vibe.

Peter: Again, it’s not necessary for the movie. We already get that through the tragedy of Johnny losing his love, and the psychic episodes he’s about to begin having, that leave him feeling like a part of him is dying. His first episode comes in the form of a vision he has when one of the nurses tries to comfort him. He sees her daughter huddled in the corner of her burning bedroom. The vision is striking, with Johnny stretched out in the little girl’s bed, watching the flames quickly consuming the house as the little girl screams out in terror. Windows break. The fishbowl boils over until it, too, shatters. Even the bed Johnny is lying in has flames growing off the blankets. It’s frightening and intense, and when it ends, Johnny screams at the nurse that “It’s not too late!” And, of course, the scene continues with the nurse pulling up outside her burning house, just as the firemen carry her daughter out, alive and badly frightened.

Lil’ Stevie: See? It’s a gift!

Peter: But it’s a gift that he doesn’t want. Or understands just yet. The REAL Stephen King is fascinated with psychic phenomena. We’ve already witnessed it with CARRIE (1976), and will see it again later in FIRESTARTER (1984). I think it’s the same appeal that many folks have with superhero stories; where the average person (or the “nobody”) has their world turned upside down with supernatural powers and abilities. THE DEAD ZONE almost feels like an allegory, only the hero never preoccupies himself with using this ability to better his own lot in life. Johnny draws a parallel between himself and Ichabod Crane from “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow,” about being “a bachelor and in debt to no one, nobody troubled their head about him.” “It’s what I want,” Johnny concludes, meaning a life of anonymity.

Lil’ Stevie: And that’s the curse. Once people hear about his psychic episode, they all want his help for their own selfish, personal reasons.

Peter: And that includes Sheriff George Bannerman (Tom Skerritt, ALIEN, 1979). Sheriff Bannerman shows up at Johnny’s home and asks for help in tracking down the Castle Rock Killer, who has been murdering young girls during the five years he was in a coma. Which is what brings us here to this gazebo.

Lil’ Stevie: I could have very easily made this the focus of my novel. The Castle Rock Killer is both frightening and intriguing.

Peter: Yes, but its Johnny’s story. If you look at how this movie is presented, it doesn’t appear to be laid out in a three-act play. Rather, it’s broken down into smaller sub-chapters that run consecutively. Each of his “episodes” plays out like a self-contained television show. The Castle Rock Killer is only one small portion of the complete story. The same with Johnny’s episode with his student, Chris Stuart (Simon Craig, CONCRETE ANGELS, 1987), where he has a vision that Chris and some of his friends will fall through the ice and drown…a fate that Johnny slowly begins to realize he has the power to change.

Lil’ Stevie: And this ability is what gives this story a title. THE DEAD ZONE is the part of the psychic visions where the outcome is not certain. It’s a blind spot, and that blind spot is that place where Johnny can alter the outcome. The whole “Wheel of Fortune” thing I mentioned earlier isn’t just a carnival game that Johnny wins thanks to his psychic ability. It’s a metaphor for life. Johnny’s gift is that he can interfere with the “Wheel of Fortune” as it spins.

Peter: Okay, that’s kind of deep. But again, we don’t need the metaphor on the big screen. Whatever exposition we need comes through in the action parts of this movie. And in the moments of dialogue between Johnny and Dr. Weizak.

(From somewhere nearby, we hear the sound of a brass band playing patriotic songs. A crowd has gathered in what looks to be a political rally).

Peter: What the hell is going on over there?

Lil’ Stevie: That’s the final piece of this puzzle. Greg Stillson is running for the US Senate. Of course, Stillson (Martin Sheen, THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN, 2012) is just as deranged and dangerous as the Castle Rock Killer, only in a much grander fashion. By way of a huge coincidence, Dr. Weizak had his life hugely altered by the Holocaust, where he was separated from his mother during the raid of their European town by the Nazis. We all know the historical significance of Hitler’s reign. And through a vision Johnny has while shaking Stillson’s hand, we see that Stillson will one day achieve the office of the President of the United States, and will ultimately start a nuclear war.

Peter: Yeah, Sheen is terrific as the evil Greg Stillson. And when all the pieces of this puzzle are in place, we see Johnny finally realizing that what he thought was a curse is actually a gift. The morality behind Johnny’s character and all the struggles he’s endured since his accident are what make this story so effectively compelling. John Smith isn’t a superhero, but he is a hero for the everyday man, in the struggle of good versus evil. Where Cronenberg shines as a director is utilizing the psychological portions of the story to display how Johnny evolves as a human being. There are times when his psychic gift feels more like a terminal disease, or at least a terrible weight that Johnny has to carry. The emotional blows to his life, and the permanent limp that handicaps him, begin to seem trivial compared to the weight of having to decide if he should give up his own life to save the world. It’s just excellent storytelling.

Lil’ Stevie: And in the end, this still comes across as one of the most faithful adaptations of my work, even if they DID cut back and compress everything about Johnny’s childhood.

Peter: (Rolling eyes), I keep telling you…YOU didn’t write anything.

Lil’ Stevie: I knew you were going to say that.

Peter: Would you shut up so we can wrap this up?

Lil’ Stevie: I knew you were going to say that, too.

Peter: What makes this movie stand out in terms of good, successful adaptations is both the excellent screenplay by Jeffrey Boam and Cronenberg’s fiercely unyielding vision as a director. Cronenberg’s oeuvre as a filmmaker is nothing short of impeccable. SCANNERS (1981), VIDEODROME (1983), THE FLY (1986), and A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE (2005) are all amazing, disturbing films. What Cronenberg offers with THE DEAD ZONE really underscores the beauty beneath the tragedy. It is a story of unrequited love, and of ultimate sacrifice in the name of love. And it’s accomplished in bursts of violence and darkness and death. I loved this movie, and would put it in my Top 5 Stephen King adaptations.

Lil’ Stevie: It’s amazing what a difference a competent director can make. With no popcorn-scares and no CGI, THE DEAD ZONE is dark and disturbing and atmospheric.

Peter: What’s also amazing is how much this particular title has become a part of our pop culture. Like with cell phones, when we drop a call because we somehow wandered into a DEAD ZONE. They even use it in commercials.

Lil’ Stevie: Not to mention THE DEAD ZONE was also adapted into the cult fan-favorite television show of the same name (2002 – 2007), starring that goofy kid from SIXTEEN CANDLES (1984).

Peter: Long Duk Dong?

Lil’ Stevie: No, the other goofy kid…Anthony Michael Hall.

Peter: Of course, horror fans will also recognize the title of Bev Vincent’s column NOTES FROM THE ZONE, which runs in Cemetery Dance Magazine, and deals with the life and fiction of Stephen King. And Mainers will recognize the call-letters, WZON, the radio station OWNED by Stephen King.

Lil’ Stevie: It’s everywhere!

Peter: I knew you’d say that.

Lil’ Stevie: Cut it out!

Peter: I knew you’d say that, too.

Lil’ Stevie: You’re really annoying.

Peter: Yep…You’re almost predictable.

(Lil’ Stevie whistles over to the Castle Rock Killer, who is kneeling down next to the dead girl on the gazebo floor).

Lil’ Stevie: Hey, Frank…My friend here says you kill young girls because you’re impotent and you like dressing in your Mommy’s underwear.

(Frank stands up and turns his scissors towards Peter).

Peter: Oops…Well, folks, thanks for joining us. See you next time.

The End

© Copyright 2012 by Peter N. Dudar

1 Comment »

Screaming Streaming: THE PERFECT HOST (2010)

Posted in 2012, Michael Arruda Reviews, Mystery, Psychos, Screaming Streaming, Suspense, Thrillers with tags , , , , , on May 11, 2012 by knifefighter

SCREAMING STREAMING!
Movie Review:  THE PERFECT HOST (2010)
By Michael Arruda

 THE PERFECT HOST is not the perfect movie.

Sure, it’s entertaining, in a sugary “oh-aren’t-we-clever sort of way,” but that’s not the best recipe for a thriller, which is why, ultimately, this one simmers rather than boils.

Career criminal John Taylor (Clayne Crawford) has just robbed a bank.  He’s injured, on the run, and he desperately needs a place to hide, so he cons his way into the plush home of one Warwick Wilson (David Hyde Pierce, who played Niles on TV’s FRASIER) by pretending to know one of Wilson’s friends.  John got the name of the friend from a postcard in Wilson’s mail.

At first Wilson declines to invite John inside, as he’s preparing dinner for guests, but he changes his mind, saying it would be rude of him to turn away a friend of a friend.  He even invites John to stay for dinner, an invitation that John grows anxious about when he learns that one of the guests is a prosecuting attorney who works for the D.A.’s office.

When news of the brazen robbery plays over the radio, John realizes his cover has been blown.  He holds Wilson at knifepoint and tells him he’s going to kill him, and the only way he’s going to change his mind is if Wilson does exactly as he says.  At first, Wilson appears to be terrified, but his behavior changes when John passes out, and Wilson announces that he had drugged his guest’s wine.

When John awakes, he finds that he is tied to a chair and discovers that his host is not the man he thought he was.  Suddenly, it’s Wilson who’s doing the terrorizing and John who’s the victim.  For a while, it seems as if Wilson is just a nutcase, but later, the plot takes several twists and turns, and we learn that there’s more to Wilson than his just being a lonely psychopath.

 

THE PERFECT HOST is a decent thriller that’s fun at times, but you really have to suspend disbelief to truly enjoy this one.  I found its convoluted story hard to swallow, and as result I never really bought it.  It’s a case where less would have been better.  David Hyde Pierce makes for a perfectly creepy psycho, and had the story left it at that, it would have worked better instead of the direction the movie ultimately takes.

You see, Wilson is not just some random psycho, which makes John’s stumbling into Wilson’s home by chance such a coincidence it doesn’t work.

But the movie’s not all bad.  The initial twist works, and there are a lot of fun scenes where Wilson torments John.  These scenes work so well because, by far, the best part of THE PERFECT HOST is David Hyde Pierce’s performance as oddball host Warwick Wilson.  He’s deliciously over the top, and he provides the movie with its best moments.  He makes a great psycho, up to a point.  One flaw is that he’s never as scary or as unsettling as he needs to be.  While I was certainly entertained by Warwick, I was never frightened by him.

As a result, THE PERFECT HOST is not much of a thriller.  It’s simply not dark enough to be taken that seriously, and it never really reaches the level of legitimate thriller.  It’s rated R, but for language, as the violence here is rather tame.

And while Pierce dominates his scenes, Clayne Crawford, who stars opposite him as John, lacks the necessary intensity to be a convincing criminal.  Also in the cast is Helen Reddy in a role that is about as integral to the plot as a loaf of bread.

There’s also something very cheap and low budget looking about this movie, as if it were filmed in the 1970s.  I wondered if this was done on purpose by director Nick Tomnay, because one of Wilson’s idiosyncrasies is his disdain for modern technology, and he doesn’t seem to have any modern electrical devices in his home, like a computer or a flat screen television, and he takes pictures with a Polaroid camera.

Come to think of it, John doesn’t carry a cell phone, and he drives a 1980s car.  Hmm.  Maybe it’s director Tomnay with the idiosyncrasies!

Tomnay also wrote the script with Krishna Jones.  Again, the first half of the story is fun, and I swallowed it hook, line, and sinker, but as it went on and added more plot twists, I simply stopped believing it all.

On a grander scale, THE PERFECT HOST could have been the type of movie Hitchcock would have directed in his day.  There’s something very claustrophobic about the first half of the film as it takes place inside Wilson’s home, which would have suited Hitchcock just fine.  But Hitchcock’s twists would have had more meat to them, and his characters would have had to suffer more angst and overcome truer obstacles than the folks in this movie.

THE PERFECT HOST has its moments—most of them provided by David Hyde Pierce—but, ultimately, it’s a light entry in the thriller genre.  More entertaining than thrilling, and hindered by a plot that lacks credibility, THE PERFECT HOST would have benefitted from the perfect re-write.

—END—

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda

1 Comment »

GONE (2012)

Posted in 2012, Cinema Knife Fights, Killers, Michael Arruda Reviews, Mystery, Serial Killer flicks, Suspense, Thrillers with tags , , , , , on February 27, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT:  GONE (2012)
By Michael Arruda

 

(The Scene:  A police station.  MICHAEL ARRUDA is arguing with several homicide detectives.)

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Aren’t you going to look for him?  I told you, he’s missing.  He was supposed to do this review with me, but he never showed up.

DETECTIVE #1:  Hasn’t he missed reviews before?  We know for a fact that you guys on occasion write solo reviews.

MA:  You read the column?

DETECTIVE #1:  Yep.

MA:  Like it?

DETECTIVE #1:  Love it.

MA:  Thank you.

DETECTIVE #2:  Didn’t you say he was going to a party afterwards?  Maybe he just blew you off and went straight to the party.

MA:  He’s not there.  I checked.

DETECTIVE #2:  I think you should come with us.

MA:  Why?

DETECTIVE #1:  We read the column, remember?  We know you two are constantly trying to do each other in.  If he’s missing, you’re our #1 suspect.

SUSPECT #1 (upon entering scene):  Then, who am I?

MA:  An unpaid extra. Okay, folks, this opening has gone on long enough, and since things aren’t looking too good for me, I’m outta here!  I’ll have to find L.L. on my own!

(MA flees the police station, jumps into a car, and speeds away, leading the police on a high speed chase.)

MA:  Looks like I’m going to have to drive and review today’s movie at the same time, as well as find L.L.  Luckily, I can multitask.

(Car nearly hits an old lady crossing the street, but MA swerves out of the way just in time.)

MA:  Sorry, ma’am!  (She flips him the bird.) (He shakes his head)  Old ladies today!

Anyway, today I’m reviewing GONE (2012), the new thriller starring one of my favorite young actresses working today, Amanda Seyfried.  And you know what?  Seyfried can carry a movie.  She carries GONE, because without her, this film’s got nothing.

In GONE, Amanda Seyfried plays Jill, a young woman who claims she was abducted by a strange man and held in a hole in the middle of the woods, before she managed to escape.  The police don’t believe her story because they never found the hole or any other evidence that corroborated her story.

Furthermore, Jill believes her abductor is a serial killer, and she has researched information of other women who have gone missing in the area over the years, and she hounds the police incessantly about her phantom kidnapper.  Needless to say, she has not made herself many friends on the force.

When Jill’s sister Molly (Emily Wickersham) disappears just before an important college exam, Jill is convinced that Molly has been abducted by the same man.  Of course, the police don’t believe her.  They believe it’s all in Jill’s head, as she has a history of psychological problems.

Without the police’s help, Jill decides it’s up to her to find and rescue her sister.  Jill also believes—because her abductor prepared to kill her at sunset— that the man will also kill her sister by sunset, and so she knows she only has the one day to save her sister.  And she’ll have to elude the police to do it, because they consider her armed and dangerous.  She’s carrying a gun, which she’s not supposed to be doing because of her psychiatric record.

And so it’s a race against time.  Jill has less than 24 hours to locate and save her sister, all the while on the run from the police.  Unless of course, the police are right, and there is no serial killer.

(MA races through a red light, plowing through a busy intersection of fast moving cars and trucks.  Miraculously, MA’s car makes it through without a scratch.)

MA:  Gotta love CGI!

There’s really not a lot to this movie.  GONE is a very average thriller.  It’s got an average cast and an average storyline, but it also has Amanda Seyfried, who is anything but average.  She’s in nearly every scene, and I never got tired of watching her.  As I said earlier, she carries this movie.  Without her, I wouldn’t like this movie, but with her, I gotta say I enjoyed it.

I thought she played Jill perfectly.  Jill is incredibly driven in her quest to save her sister.  She pulls guns on people, lies, makes up one story after another, takes people’s cars—behaviors that can easily be confused with insanity.  She does all this because she only has one day to save her sister’s life.

Seyfried convinced me that Jill firmly believes that her sister will die unless she finds her.  There is a heightened desperation to her performance, as if the character is overtaken by adrenaline and never stops.

Going in, I wasn’t crazy about the story, which I had seen neatly explained in the movie’s trailers.  Is Jill insane, or did someone really abduct her before, the same someone who now has her sister?  Fortunately, I didn’t have a lot of time to think about it during the film, because I was too busy watching Seyfried in action, evading the police while playing private investigator. The movie’s paced very well.  Director Heitor Dhalia keeps things brisk.

(MA’s car races along highway in fast motion, with a long line of police cars in hot pursuit.)

MA:  Allison Burnett wrote the screenplay, and she also wrote the screenplay for UNDERWORLD: AWAKENING (2012).  I’m sure writing a script for a cookie-cutter sequel in a dreadful series isn’t the best indicator of one’s writing talents.  Burnett does a much better job with GONE, which is a much better movie than UNDERWORLD: AWAKENING.  Then again, there aren’t going to be a whole lot of movies worse than UNDERWORLD:  AWAKENING.  At least GONE has characters who speak real dialogue and actually sound and act like real people.

(Car pulls up to MA’s car.  It’s driven by a vampire.)

VAMPIRE:  Hey!  I heard what you said.  I’m insulted.

MA:  Why?  You think you act and sound like a real person?  If that were the case, you’d be swearing at me right now for doing this.

(MA swerves his car and knocks vampire’s car off the road.)

VAMPIRE:  I will avenge this act of violence against my kind!   I will seek the assistance of—.  (His car crashes and blows up.)

MA:  See what I mean?  Phony video game vampire speak.

Seriously, though, the story in GONE is nothing to write home about.  It’s all rather silly when you think about it, and even though this one rose above its material, I did have several beefs with its story.

For starters, Jill finds clues so easily in this movie, the police here must be dolts.  She’s able to track down all this information in so short a time, and yet the police have had months to do the same but haven’t been able to come up with anything?  The premise that Jill can solve this mystery in less than 24 hours is not very believable.

Neither are the arguments the police use to debunk Jill’s assertions about her abduction.  The main reason the police don’t believe her story is because they weren’t able to find the hole in the park where she was buried, and thus couldn’t confirm her story.  This would make sense if it were a little park, but the park in the movie is a vast expanse of wilderness.  We’re talking acres here!  And they’re supposed to locate a little hole in the middle of the woods, and when they can’t, they assume it’s not there?  So, they just throw in the towel and call Jill crazy?  It’s kind of a dumb argument.

The police also cite the fact that Jill couldn’t identify her abductor as a reason why she couldn’t be believed.  Really?  You don’t think that a serial killer might try and hide his identity?  The police found this suspicious.  I didn’t.

The movie just doesn’t do a good job of making us see the police’s side of the story.  Their arguments have holes.

Another drawback is that GONE lacks a villain.  Since Seyfried carries this movie on her back, the film could have certainly used the presence of a nasty bad guy, but because throughout the movie we’re never sure if there really is a bad guy, a screen villain is obviously— and noticeably— absent.

I was dreading the ending to this one big time.  I feared it would be the old “the killer is the last person we expect” trick, which usually is a forced plot point and makes no sense.  Luckily, that’s not the case in GONE.  As I watched the ending play out, fearing the worst, I suddenly realized, “this ending works!” The fact that I wasn’t down on the ending was a pleasant surprise.

(MA drives into the woods.  Pulls car over and gets out.)

MA:  I’m here in the woods because I just received a clue.  (holds up phone with text message that reads, “Looking for L.L.?  Try the woods.”)

As I said earlier, the rest of the cast is average.  Daniel Sunjata, as Powers, the main cop on the case, and Katherine Moenning as his partner Erica, are both watchable, as is Wes Bentley as Peter Hood, an officer who seems to have a dark side.  The same can be said for Emily Wickersham, who we saw in last year’s I AM NUMBER 4, as Jill’s sister Molly, and Sebastian Stan, as Molly’s boyfriend Billy.

Jennifer Carpenter has an absolutely thankless role as Jill’s friend, Sharon.  Carpenter, if you remember, turned in a couple of memorable performances in QUARANTINE (2008) and THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE (2005).  Here she’s reduced to just a couple of scenes, none of them all that important.

GONE isn’t much of a thriller, either.  There’s no edge-of-your-seat action, no sweaty palms, no scares.  It plays much more like a mystery than a thriller, as we watch Seyfried’s Jill race against time to put the pieces of the puzzle together and find and rescue her sister.

But all this being said, I found GONE very enjoyable.  I liked it a lot, and it all comes down to Amanda Seyfried.  This movie works because she dominates each scene she is in, she’s extremely watchable, and even though you know this movie isn’t anything to write home about, she makes you believe in what she’s doing, she draws you into her story, and the funny thing is you don’t really care if she’s nuts or not, you still want to go along for the ride.

I give GONE three knives.  Take Seyfried out of this movie, and you’re looking at maybe 1 or 2 knives, at best.

Okay, we’re in the part of the woods where— there it is!  There’s the hole!  L.L., are you down there?  (points flashlight into hole and sees L.L. lying on the ground.)

L.L SOARES:  Hey, stop shining that light in my face!

MA:  What are you doing down there?

LS:  What does it look like I’m doing?  I was sleeping.

MA:  Sleeping?   In a hole in the middle of the woods?

LS:  Hey, it works for bears.  It’s time for me to get to that party anyway.  (Climbs out of hole).  So, how was GONE?

MA:  I just finished reviewing it.  I gave it three knives.

LS:  Three knives?  I think you have a crush on Amanda Seyfried.

MA:  My affection for her is purely professional.  Besides, you like her too.

LS:  Not enough to see GONE.  (Sirens are heard in the distance, getting closer.)  What’s going on?

MA:  It’s the police.  They’re after me.  It’s a long story.  We’d better get out of here.

LS:  It looks like another fine mess you’ve gotten us into.

MA:  Well, folks, that’s it for now.  We’re outta here.  We’ll see you next week with a review of another new movie.

VOICE:  This is the police.  We have you surrounded.

(LS scurries to the hole.)

MA (to LS):  Where are you going?

LS:  Back into the hole.  Come on down.  I have widescreen TV down there.  We can preview next month’s movies.

MA:  Popcorn?

LS:  Of course.

(LS & MA disappear into the hole as the police converge on the scene.)

OFFICER #1:  Do you smell popcorn?

—END—

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda

Michael Arruda gives GONE~three knives.

(and it doesn’t hurt if you’re an Amanda Seyfried fan)

Leave A Comment »

Quick Cuts: NICOLAS CAGE VS. LIAM NEESON

Posted in "So Bad They're Good" Movies, 2012, Action Movies, Campy Movies, Just Plain Fun, Liam Neeson Movies, Nicolas Cage Movies, Quick Cuts, Suspense, Thrillers with tags , , , , , , on February 17, 2012 by knifefighter

QUICK CUTS:   NICHOLAS CAGE OR LIAM NEESON?
Featuring a Panel of Cinema Knife Fighters

#  #

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Today on QUICK CUTS we ask our panel of Cinema Knife Fighters, “If you had to choose between Nicholas Cage or Liam Neeson, which one would you rather see in a movie?”

We pose this question because both these guys have carved out niches for themselves of late, starring in a string of successful action movies. And because they both make a ton of movies, they each have had their share of misfires.

 

CHALLENGER # 1 – NICOLAS CAGE

 

So, Cage or Neeson?  Does anyone have an opinion on this?

GARRETT COOK:  Hell yes, I have an opinion on this!

L.L. SOARES:  I should hope so!  You’re on the flippin panel!

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  We might as well start this one off with a bang.

L.L. SOARES:  So, what’s your opinion?

GARRETT COOK:  With the exception of his roles in DRIVE ANGRY (2011) and KICK-ASS (2010) Nicholas Cage makes me want to bite him until he dies every time he plagues my screen with this vomity acting, slow talking, and stupid, stupid face.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Wow, I guess you do have an opinion! Is “vomity” even a word?

GARRETT COOK:  You know what I mean.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  I certainly do. And I can’t say I disagree with you.

L.L. SOARES:  Well, I disagree, but I’ll wait a bit before I prove you wrong.

MARK OSNPAUGH:  Ouch!

GARRETT COOK:  Liam Neeson is a street-smart man-god, who kills white slavers and was the best character in GANGS OF NEW YORK (2002). I forgive him for his involvement in STAR WARS EPISODE I – THE PHANTOM MENACE (1999).

Neeson over Cage.

L.L. SOARES: Actually, Daniel-Day Lewis was the best thing in GANGS OF NEW YORK. In fact, I thought he was the only thing memorable about that movie.

MARK ONSPAUGH:  My turn.

While I love the goofball eccentricity Cage brings to his roles, I find myself thanking God every day he was not Superman…

(The panel rises in unison and cheers, except for L.L. SOARES, who boos)

L.L. SOARES: Cage would have made an excellent Superman!

MARK ONSPAUGH: I’ll pretend you didn’t say that. Also, if the there was a chance to see either one in a kick-ass movie, then I would go with Neeson—his voice is awesome (witness the voice-overs for Star Wars: The Old Republic commercials) and he brings a certain gravitas to his serious roles… Was he not a major bad-ass in TAKEN (2008)? And let’s not forget he was DARKMAN (1990), Gawain in EXCALIBUR (1981), Kegan in KRULL (1983), ROB ROY (1995), Zeus in CLASH OF THE TITANS (2010)… AND freaking Ras Al-Ghul in the Nolan Batman trilogy…

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  While I liked him as DARKMAN, I can’t say I was ever too excited by those other roles.

MARK ONSPAUGH:  Plus, he’s proved he can have fun in popcorn fare like THE A-TEAM (2010). I don’t know if it’s his training or his tragedy (probably both), but I “buy” Neeson much more than Cage… Did I mention he’s Aslan in NARNIA?

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Nope, and I wish you hadn’t!

CHALLENGER # 2 - LIAM NEESON

MARK ONSPAUGH:  Now, the real question—how about the two together as in-laws?

L.L. SOARES:  Well, for the record, I have to admit, I love them both.

MARK ONSPAUGH:  Hmm, maybe we should be considering Cage, Neeson, and Soares as in-laws?

L.L. SOARES:  Huh?  Wait, how many in-laws can a person have?

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  All three of you could be brothers-in-law.

L.L. SOARES:  Too confusing.  Let me just make my points.

When Cage brings his over-the-top lunacy to a movie, it can turn a mediocre film into a campy treat. But there was a time when he was a serious actor. Back when he won the Oscar for LEAVING LAS VEGAS (1995), and had roles in WILD AT HEART (1990) and KISS OF DEATH (1995).

But by the time he started appearing in action fare like THE ROCK (1996) and CON-AIR (1997), he had already become a parody of himself. Then something weird happened. He took that parody version of himself and pushed it all the way through to the other side.

Now in stuff like BAD LIETUENANT: PORT OF CALL NEW ORLEANS (2009), and DRIVE ANGRY (2011), he’s turned his eccentricities into an art form.

GARRETT COOK:  Yeah, bad art!

L.L. SOARES:  Even though I look forward to most movies Cage is in, I won’t see everything. I still haven’t seen his NATIONAL TREASURE movies, nor do I plan to.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Smart move. You’re not missing much.

L.L. SOARES:  I can also live without seeing FAMILY MAN (2000) and THE SORCERER’S APPRENTICE (2010). I just have no desire to see Cage in any kind of “family” film.

Neeson is the more serious of the two, but even he has had his low points. As Garrett mentioned, he was Qui-Gon Jinn in STAR WARS EPISODE 1 – THE PHANTOM MENACE, a character who just did nothing for me. And he was a ho-hum Zeus in the awful CLASH OF THE TITANS remake. But even in bad movies and less than stellar roles, he seems to rise above the crap and maintain his dignity. There is an air of authority and gravitas that Neeson brings to every role, so he’s always watchable, at least. His more recent action fare with TAKEN, UNKNOWN (2011) and THE GREY (2012) have been a lot more entertaining than they have any right to be, and I can’t wait to see more of this “new” Liam Neeson.

Neeson's latest film is THE GREY.

But at this point, I look forward to any new movie either of them puts out. Even if they’re in bad movies, they’re still more entertaining than 90% of the rest of the actors out there.

COLLEEN WANGLUND:  I’ve liked Nic Cage in a handful of movies—.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Nic Cage?

MARK ONSPAUGH:  I’m adding Colleen to the in-law list with Cage, Neeson, and Soares.

L.L. SOARES:  Huh?

MICHAEL ARRUDA (laughing):  Yeah, she’s the sister in-law.

COLLEEN WANGLUND:  As I was saying, I’ve liked Nic Cage in a handful of movies, like LEAVING LAS VEGAS (1995), WILD AT HEART (1990), RAISING ARIZONA (1987), and MOONSTRUCK (1987)—but for the most part I think Cage “phones it in”.

L.L. SOARES:  I don’t think so. I think he hams it up in a fun way, and sometimes people miss that in his performances.

COLLEEN WANGLUND:  Well, in my opinion, Liam Neeson is just a better actor, regardless of the movie role.

L.L. SOARES:  I agree Neeson is the better actor, but Cage won an Oscar! That said, they’re both doing their best work in movies that many people might consider beneath them. Well, beneath Neeson at least…

GARRETT COOK:  We’re talking too much about Cage. Someone hand me a barf bag!

COLLEEN WANGLUND:  Well, that’s my answer.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Liam Neeson or Nicholas Cage?

L.L. SOARES:  Yeah, that’s the question, you dolt. Are you going to answer it or repeat it again?

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  For you, I might just repeat it, but since we have an entire panel here tonight, I’ll let it go. But now it’s my turn.

Up until a few years ago, I wasn’t a fan of either one of these actors.

Way back when, I did like Neeson in his early roles, in films like SUSPECT  (1987) and THE MISSION (1986), and of course, he was outstanding in SCHINDLER’S LIST (1992). But surprisingly he failed to impress me in LES MISERABLE (1998), and then came a string of roles that just didn’t wow me, starting with STAR WARS EPISODE I – THE PHANTOM MENACE and including such movies as BATMAN BEGINS (2005), the NARNIA movies, and CLASH OF THE TITANS. Of course, I didn’t see everything Neeson made during these years, but what I was seeing wasn’t doing much for me. I mean, he was fine in these films, but he wasn’t outstanding.

However, I’ve really enjoyed Neeson lately in films like CHLOE (2009), UNKNOWN and THE GREY. He’s been excellent in these movies.

L.L. SOARES: I liked CHLOE a lot, too.

MICHAEL ARRUDA: Cage always seems to grate on my nerves.

GARRETT COOK:  Would you like a barf bag?

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  No thanks. He never made me want to throw up, but he does get under my skin.

Like with Neeson, I did enjoy some of his early movies, like RAISING ARIZONA (1987) and MOONSTRUCK (1987)

L.L. SOARES: MOONSTRUCK? That’s what you consider to be a good Nicolas Cage movie? Gimme LEAVING LAS VEGAS and WILD AT HEART over those any day.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  I think he’s pretty darn good in MOONSTRUCK, but as his career went on he appeared in movies I either didn’t like or wasn’t interested in seeing. His appearance in THE ROCK (1996) began a stretch of action movies I wasn’t crazy about.

Also like Neeson, I’ve enjoyed some recent performances by Cage, in such movies as SEASON OF THE WITCH (2011) and DRIVE ANGRY 3D (2011). However, the big difference between the two is Neeson’s recent roles have left me wanting to see whatever he’s doing next. I can’t say the same for Cage.

Nicolas Cage's new movie GHOST RIDER: SPIRIT OF VENGEANCE comes out this weekend!

So, Liam Neeson or Nicholas Cage?

L.L. SOARES:  Are you repeating the question again?

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  That’s my gift to you.

Anyway, I’m going with Neeson.

NICK CATO:  Here’s my two cents.

L.L. SOARES:  Hey, Nick!  You’re here!

NICK CATO:  Yep, I’m here.

L.L. SOARES:  You’ve been so quiet, I hadn’t noticed you!

DANIEL KEOHANE:  I’m here too. Waiting patiently, while you guys continue to dominate the conversation.

L.L. SOARES:  Quit whining!  We’ll get to you!

DANIEL KEOHANE:  I’d like to think you’re saving the best for last.

L.L. SOARES:  You can think that all you want, but it’s not true!  (laughs).

MARK ONSPAUGH:  I could add you to the “in-laws” list if that would make you feel any better.

GARRETT COOK:  How about a barf bag?

DANIEL KEOHANE:  No, no. I’m good. (Feigns a pouty face.)

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  How about your two cents, Nick?

NICK CATO:  I’ve been a big Nicolas Cage fan since seeing him in RAISING ARIZONA (1987).

While there’s no denying Liam Neeson is a great (and better) actor —I especially liked him in KINSEY (2004) —a lot of roles he chooses simply don’t interest me. Cage is always over the top, comical, and while a lot of people don’t care for it, I love his constant neo-Elvis persona (his role as Sailor Ripley in David Lynch’s WILD AT HEART (1990) was priceless). Regardless of who is directing him (be it Lynch, Werner Herzog, or the Coen Brothers), Cage always makes these unique roles his own.

L.L. SOARES:  I think a lot of people don’t get Nicholas Cage.

GARRETT COOK:  I get him. He just makes me sick!

DANIEL KEOHANE:  Is it finally my turn?

L.L. SOARES:  Yes, it’s finally your turn!

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Go for it.

DANIEL KEOHANE:  The way they each approach their roles is completely different. Cage takes on more “Everyman” characters caught in larger-than-life situations. Neeson, though also in predicament-type movies, seems more bent on suspense films vs. Cage’s science fiction/fantasy/action roles.

And Neeson carries a more—if this makes any sense—literary air about himself.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Yeah, I know what you mean. There’s an intellectual presence in his roles. He almost carries himself like he’s a college professor

L.L. SOARES:  Yeah, a college professor who kicks some serious ass!

DANIEL KEOHANE:  Cage does more of a comic book kind of thing.

Or here’s an even worse metaphor: Neeson is multi-grain to Cage’s Wonder Bread. I like them both, depending on my appetite.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  I don’t see Cage as Wonder Bread. He’s more like Beer Bread.

L.L. SOARES:  What the hell is beer bread?

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Bread made with beer. It’s good. But if you eat too much of it, you won’t be feeling too good. Kinda like watching Nicholas Cage.

Well, thanks everyone for taking part in tonight’s QUICK CUTS column. For what it’s worth, the voting tonight went LIAM NEESON – 6, NICHOLAS CAGE – 3, so this panel clearly favored Neeson.

On behalf of Garrett Cook, Mark Onspaugh, Colleen Wanglund, Nick Cato, Dan Keohane, L.L. Soares and myself, Michael Arruda, thank you all for joining us, and we’ll see you next time!

—END—

Leave A Comment »

FROZEN (2010)

Posted in 2012, Bad Situations, Paul McMahon Columns, Thrillers with tags , , , , , on February 15, 2012 by knifefighter

FROZEN (2010)
Review by Paul McMahon–  “The Distracted Critic”

I almost never watch an entire movie in one shot anymore. Interruptions and distractions over the past decade have made hitting “Pause” and taking a break, an involuntary act. There are some movies I have watched literally ten minutes at a time. It’s not uncommon for me to take four or five time outs during a ninety minute film.

I finally watched FROZEN after hearing many people rave about it, both in person and via their online personas. The movie focuses on three college kids: Parker O’Neil, played by Emma Bell (she was Molly Harper in FINAL DESTINATION 5 (2011) and Amy in the TV series THE WALKING DEAD), her boyfriend Dan Walker, played by Kevin Zegers (who was previously in WRONG TURN (2003) and the 2004 remake of DAWN OF THE DEAD), and Dan’s best friend Joe Lynch, played by Shawn Ashmore (who was Iceman in the first three X-MEN movies (2000, 2003, 2006) and was also in 2008’s THE RUINS).

We learn right off the bat that Joe and Dan are cheaters, showing up at Mount Holliston to ski without lift tickets. The girl who runs the lift has an eye for Joe, and a dose of his charm, along with a cash hand-off of fifty bucks, will get them rides all day. Problem is, the girl is off today and the guy who’s taken her spot doesn’t look prone to a bright-eyed man smile. Joe and Dan quickly coerce Parker into sweet-talking the guy into letting her and her “girlfriends” use the lift. She agrees to try when they give her an extra fifty to barter with. While she succeeds, she catches crap from Joe for giving the guy the entire hundred without asking for change, and then catches more grief from the chairlift operator when he meets her “girlfriends.”

As dusk falls, Joe complains about spending the whole day “watching Parker fall on her ass,” and demands one last chance to do some “real skiing.” Because the operation is shutting down, it’s tough to convince the lift guy to give them one last ride, but they manage.

As soon as their chair is out of sight, the lift operator is summoned to the boss’s office. He tells the guy taking over the lift that “there are three more coming down, and then you’re all set.” In the lift chair, Parker fantasizes about the food she’s going to eat when they stop on the way home, as three skiers whip past beneath them. Seconds later, these three pass the new lift operator, who kills the lift and races to clock out, leaving Parker, Dan and Joe stranded fifty feet in the air too far away to be heard at the bottom of the mountain.

It’s a tense moment. Our antagonists come up with reasons for the lift to stall when there’s no one else riding, and just as they convince themselves the lift will start up again, the lights all over the mountain go out. The wind picks up, the snow starts falling, and they realize that it being Sunday night, the mountain will be closed until Friday. No help is coming. They must find their own way down or freeze to death.

The setup is very well executed. Being a lifelong sufferer of acrophobia (walking near the edge of the second floor of the mall is enough to make my knees go wobbly), I was very uncomfortable from here on out, especially after it’s shown how easily the safety bar lifts up.

Shawn Ashmore has caught my attention every time I’ve seen his work. He shines here, as well. His character Joe is a bit of an anomaly, being good-looking and charming, but with a geek streak just wide enough to make finding a girlfriend challenging.

This was my first time seeing Emma Bell. She does a wonderful job here, playing the very likable Parker O’Neil and doing a great job blending her character’s fragile self-esteem with her determination to survive. In shock at one point, she starts to blame Joe about their situation and he turns it around on her, laying into her by reacting to his own anger and helplessness. She cowers and clutches his arm, demonstrating that she is the stronger person by not allowing their desperation to divide them when they still have to rely on each other.

Kevin Zegers impressed me the most. His character, Dan Walker, is a man growing apart from his life-long best friend while becoming more interested in sharing his life with his girlfriend Parker. It was his idea to allow Parker to come along on “guy day,” and he’s stuck in the mire of Joe and Parker’s distrust of each other, trying to balance both allegiances without breaking ties to either.

Adam Green, who wrote and directed the film (Editor’s Note: he also directed the HATCHET movies), has done an excellent job crafting a frightening movie that’s not your typical horror fare. While he doesn’t skimp on the tension or the gore, he’s crafted something more reliant on character relationships than the typical guessing game of “Who will survive and what will be left of them?”

Despite being so well-written, it does dip into using two horror movie clichés and leave a “Is that even possible?” question. The first cliché is the old “What would be the worst way to die?” conversation. If you’ve seen more than two horror movies in your life, you know that when characters have this conversation each is fated to suffer a permutation of their fear a few shades darker and more agonizing than they can imagine. The second cliché comes deep enough into the movie that revealing it would constitute a spoiler. Even so… one lift chair every 50 feet stretching up and down a 2,000 foot mountain… we’ll say roughly 80 chairs? Now think of a pistol with eighty chambers and a single bullet. Spin the barrel, snap it closed, and point it at your head. What are the chances you got the single fatal chamber?

That leaves the “Is that even possible?” question. New England has eastern wolves, a brownish coyote/wolf hybrid. The gray wolves depicted in FROZEN are not found in the Northeast according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website. Too nitpicky? Maybe.

Despite these minor, easily ignored flaws the film is intense and frightening, the acting is spot-on, and the writing is tight. For a ninety some-odd minute movie about three people stranded on a ski lift, there is virtually no time when nothing is happening. It’s a very effective fright film. My distractible nature only reared up once during the entire running time, and I remained haunted by the uncertainty of the story until I restarted it.

I give FROZEN four stars, with a single time out.

© Copyright 2012 by Paul McMahon

 

1 Comment »

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 87 other followers