Bad writing.
Tonally all over the place. Lame, strained attempts to infuse humor.
Tonally all over the place. Lame, strained attempts to infuse humor.
Reviews
7 Reviews
It Comes at Night
(2017)
Don't Understand the Hype
12 August 2017
There's a lot of discussion on here as to whether this film constitutes a horror film or something more akin to a psychological drama.
As a horror film, I didn't find the film scary, and as a psychological drama, not particularly fresh in what it was presenting. I consider 'The Road' as a much, much stronger example of a film that blends horror and psychological drama - in exploring the limits of humanity & family in an apocalyptic setting.
It's nonetheless a well-made film with fine performances, but I came into the film expecting...something great, which it wasn't. That's hype for you.
As a horror film, I didn't find the film scary, and as a psychological drama, not particularly fresh in what it was presenting. I consider 'The Road' as a much, much stronger example of a film that blends horror and psychological drama - in exploring the limits of humanity & family in an apocalyptic setting.
It's nonetheless a well-made film with fine performances, but I came into the film expecting...something great, which it wasn't. That's hype for you.
Poor Woman's Fatal Attraction
1 April 2017
I'd be wanting to see this film for some time, and knowing that Curtis Hanson was directing, I was anticipating a very solid ride.
Sadly, I was more than a little disappointed with the outcome.
Much of the problem of this film lies with the script, I believe. For me, The Hand That Rocks The Cradle represents the absolute epitome of formula-driven filmmaking.
While Fatal Attraction, an earlier example of the 'person from hell' thriller subgenre is tightly-structured, it nevertheless managed to be more than just a formula film, by offering nuanced portrayals of protagonist & antagonist. Though terrifying, Glenn Close's Alex was, for my money, still a rather conflict and even sympathetic character through much of the story, as she fights a losing battle against her growing obsession. It elevated the material and made the villain not simply one-dimensional.
In this film, however, I found it very hard to feel any sympathy at all for Peyton. Her double losses of child and husband at the beginning of the film were presumably anticipated to generate a level of sympathy for the character, but it was not the case for me. As soon as she enters as Peyton, she demonstrates a single-minded intent and maliciousness not out of step with a moustache-twirling bond villain.
To some extent, characters in a film will always function in service of the plot, but I think the secret of good writing is to make it less obvious - that each character's choices feel organic to their character and not simply existing to push the plot forward piece by piece - unless of course you're making a spoof or parody.
I read in one review that the screenwriter wrote this script as her thesis during film school, and it very much feels like a student of films like Fatal Attraction and others doing a carefully-planned paint by numbers incarnation of the psycho person thriller.
Sadly, I was more than a little disappointed with the outcome.
Much of the problem of this film lies with the script, I believe. For me, The Hand That Rocks The Cradle represents the absolute epitome of formula-driven filmmaking.
While Fatal Attraction, an earlier example of the 'person from hell' thriller subgenre is tightly-structured, it nevertheless managed to be more than just a formula film, by offering nuanced portrayals of protagonist & antagonist. Though terrifying, Glenn Close's Alex was, for my money, still a rather conflict and even sympathetic character through much of the story, as she fights a losing battle against her growing obsession. It elevated the material and made the villain not simply one-dimensional.
In this film, however, I found it very hard to feel any sympathy at all for Peyton. Her double losses of child and husband at the beginning of the film were presumably anticipated to generate a level of sympathy for the character, but it was not the case for me. As soon as she enters as Peyton, she demonstrates a single-minded intent and maliciousness not out of step with a moustache-twirling bond villain.
To some extent, characters in a film will always function in service of the plot, but I think the secret of good writing is to make it less obvious - that each character's choices feel organic to their character and not simply existing to push the plot forward piece by piece - unless of course you're making a spoof or parody.
I read in one review that the screenwriter wrote this script as her thesis during film school, and it very much feels like a student of films like Fatal Attraction and others doing a carefully-planned paint by numbers incarnation of the psycho person thriller.
The Woodsman
(2004)
Mysterious Skin does it better...
25 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Granted, Mysterious Skin looks at the issue of pedophilia and child abuse from the perspective of the victims, while this film looks at the struggle of the offender, however...
This film really lacked the depth that MS goes into in exploring the devastating ramifications of child abuse, and generally in the realness of its characterizations. It felt very Hollywood in imposing a redemption plot - kind of rendering the taboo topic kind of generic and usual.
While the film does not in any way apologize for the past deeds of its protagonist, In applying a kind of 'hero's journey' structure, it - by implication - turns the protagonist into a quasi-hero. This is particularly evident in the climactic scene where Walter beats up the other offender, Candy. I just didn't believe this would be something Walter's character would do, and it felt like a contrived attempt to redeem Walter's character and make him more palatable to mainstream audiences.
I enjoyed the performances in this film and it was really nice and unexpected watching Kevin Bacon embarking on this kind of challenging role.
However, for me it's a 7 at best.
This film really lacked the depth that MS goes into in exploring the devastating ramifications of child abuse, and generally in the realness of its characterizations. It felt very Hollywood in imposing a redemption plot - kind of rendering the taboo topic kind of generic and usual.
While the film does not in any way apologize for the past deeds of its protagonist, In applying a kind of 'hero's journey' structure, it - by implication - turns the protagonist into a quasi-hero. This is particularly evident in the climactic scene where Walter beats up the other offender, Candy. I just didn't believe this would be something Walter's character would do, and it felt like a contrived attempt to redeem Walter's character and make him more palatable to mainstream audiences.
I enjoyed the performances in this film and it was really nice and unexpected watching Kevin Bacon embarking on this kind of challenging role.
However, for me it's a 7 at best.
One False Move
(1991)
One Overrated Movie
25 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Gosh, I found this movie to be overrated.
Many favorable reviews have applauded the depth of characterization in this film. Frankly, I found the characters to be quite caricatured and stereotypical, from Bill Paxton's small-town cop with big dreams, to loony toons villains Billy Bob Thornton and Michael Beach (although played menacingly enough).
Plot-wise, there were really no interesting twists and turns in this film. The dialogue is mostly just aggressive or profane.
The reveal of the relationship between Hurricane and Fantasia is fine enough, but the writing of the interaction between those characters is so void of subtext; it almost feels a bit like a soap-opera.
The film looks nice, the locations are evocative and the performances are generally quite good. But the best film of 1992, according to Gene Siskel!? Hmph.
Many favorable reviews have applauded the depth of characterization in this film. Frankly, I found the characters to be quite caricatured and stereotypical, from Bill Paxton's small-town cop with big dreams, to loony toons villains Billy Bob Thornton and Michael Beach (although played menacingly enough).
Plot-wise, there were really no interesting twists and turns in this film. The dialogue is mostly just aggressive or profane.
The reveal of the relationship between Hurricane and Fantasia is fine enough, but the writing of the interaction between those characters is so void of subtext; it almost feels a bit like a soap-opera.
The film looks nice, the locations are evocative and the performances are generally quite good. But the best film of 1992, according to Gene Siskel!? Hmph.
Yawn of the Planet of the Apes
19 July 2014
I really can't understand how this movie has received such rave reviews, and currently holds a 91% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
Firstly, the story. I thought there was nothing terribly wrong with the story, nor anything too implausible (given the basic set-up), but it was just so, so reminiscent of any number of blockbusters that I've seen over the years. Just so interchangeable. The message that Apes & Humans are alike in their moral spectrum was, in true Hollywood style, hit on the head with a sledgehammer and then reinforced several times over.
Characters. A fine cast, but there was so little that was distinctive or memorable about characters from either species' cast - again, so stock. Gary Oldman felt wasted in here and looked and acted exactly like he did in Batman.
Special Effects - they were impressive. But the modern blockbuster (starting perhaps with 'The Dark Knight'), seems to overstay its welcome with spectacle overkill and if you're like me, you'll do just about anything to avoid sitting through another prolonged action sequence, unless you're fifteen years old.
91%...really? I'm not suggesting it's terrible, but to put things into perspective, this film has the same rating as the seminal science fiction film 'Blade Runner'. It seems that reviewers have a very fickle memory indeed...
Firstly, the story. I thought there was nothing terribly wrong with the story, nor anything too implausible (given the basic set-up), but it was just so, so reminiscent of any number of blockbusters that I've seen over the years. Just so interchangeable. The message that Apes & Humans are alike in their moral spectrum was, in true Hollywood style, hit on the head with a sledgehammer and then reinforced several times over.
Characters. A fine cast, but there was so little that was distinctive or memorable about characters from either species' cast - again, so stock. Gary Oldman felt wasted in here and looked and acted exactly like he did in Batman.
Special Effects - they were impressive. But the modern blockbuster (starting perhaps with 'The Dark Knight'), seems to overstay its welcome with spectacle overkill and if you're like me, you'll do just about anything to avoid sitting through another prolonged action sequence, unless you're fifteen years old.
91%...really? I'm not suggesting it's terrible, but to put things into perspective, this film has the same rating as the seminal science fiction film 'Blade Runner'. It seems that reviewers have a very fickle memory indeed...
Straw Dogs
(2011)
Underwhelming
26 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
...SPOILERS AHEAD...
Most of us agree that remakes are a pretty pointless affair. So, in the spirit of this, I am going to add yet another pointless review expressing my disappointment with this insipid remake.
It's been a little while since I saw the original, but watching this film, I was startled at how very closely the plot here mirrors the Peckinpah film. Yes, I know it's a remake, but what about adding at least a slightly original twist to the story, other than merely changing the location and our mismatched couple's occupations?
This is a competently made film, which is quite a bit pacier than the original, which had a slow-burn pace (which I might, I didn't mind at all). For the remake, it was probably a good idea to boost the pace for modern audiences, and the story generally maintains a good momentum.
Performances are decent. It was nice to see James Marsden play against type for a change, but neither he nor Kate Bosworth can match up to Dustin Hoffman and Susan George's complex portrayals in the original film - but then again - this film lacks pretty much all of the nuance, moral ambiguity and confronting themes explored in Peckinpah's film.
I'd also like to briefly express my disappointment with James Woods - who yells, swears and fights throughout the film. Yes, okay, he is a redneck alcoholic coach, but this is a film - a little character development would be nice. But then, Woods is probably adequately honouring what was undoubtedly a two- (or one-) dimensional depiction in the script. What a waste of a good actor.
When I saw Peckinpah's film, I felt confronted, a little exhilarated (like Hoffman after he gets his bloody revenge during the house siege) and then a little guilty. It is hugely discomforting but also hugely compelling when we see Hoffman's previously mild (repressed) character experience some glee during and after the bloodbath. He is, in the moment, delighted to discover that he can match up to the raw fury of the country lads, before any guilt or self-reproach sets in. No sense of this with in the new film, or perhaps it was too 'subtle' for me to notice.
Then there is the infamous rape scene. Watching the remake's 'making of', the producer expressed his disgust at the fact that George's character in the original is shown to experience some element of enjoyment in the rape scene. It makes the original scene repellent indeed, but also very interesting. Peckinpah has depicted the original Amy as quite an immature and fickle young woman, who courts attention, and enjoys it when she receives it - until it goes horribly too far.
The new scene is horrible to watch as well - it's quite clear that there is absolutely no element of subtle encouragement from Amy - and while this is true and appropriate, it certainly also makes her character less complex than Amy of the original.
Yes, this is a glossy, well-made, and superficial retake on Peckinpah's film.
***SPOILER ALERT***
Two points I'd quickly like to touch on in closing...
1. I did not really appreciate hearing the producer of the new film denigrating Peckinpah's film. For instance, he was critiquing the choice to make David a mathematician in the original film. Apparently the contrast between David and Amy was too extreme. The original was an extreme film (especially when it was released) that wanted to make a strong point about the 'civilized' man's relationship to violence, and it did so in a way that the remake couldn't. 'Rationalising' David's character by making him a screenwriter instead of a mathematician does nothing.
2. One review claimed that 'Peckinpah rubbed our noses in the bloodlust. Lurie invites objectivity.' ...Really?
The original had some shocking violence, but quite frankly, I was stunned at how much blood and guts splattered across the screen in this remake, or indeed how long the camera lingered closely on Charlie's head after it had been 'bear-trapped'...
And WHY THE BLIP did we need to see Jeremy's bone protruding from his forearm after the accident? What does this add...?
That's all.
Most of us agree that remakes are a pretty pointless affair. So, in the spirit of this, I am going to add yet another pointless review expressing my disappointment with this insipid remake.
It's been a little while since I saw the original, but watching this film, I was startled at how very closely the plot here mirrors the Peckinpah film. Yes, I know it's a remake, but what about adding at least a slightly original twist to the story, other than merely changing the location and our mismatched couple's occupations?
This is a competently made film, which is quite a bit pacier than the original, which had a slow-burn pace (which I might, I didn't mind at all). For the remake, it was probably a good idea to boost the pace for modern audiences, and the story generally maintains a good momentum.
Performances are decent. It was nice to see James Marsden play against type for a change, but neither he nor Kate Bosworth can match up to Dustin Hoffman and Susan George's complex portrayals in the original film - but then again - this film lacks pretty much all of the nuance, moral ambiguity and confronting themes explored in Peckinpah's film.
I'd also like to briefly express my disappointment with James Woods - who yells, swears and fights throughout the film. Yes, okay, he is a redneck alcoholic coach, but this is a film - a little character development would be nice. But then, Woods is probably adequately honouring what was undoubtedly a two- (or one-) dimensional depiction in the script. What a waste of a good actor.
When I saw Peckinpah's film, I felt confronted, a little exhilarated (like Hoffman after he gets his bloody revenge during the house siege) and then a little guilty. It is hugely discomforting but also hugely compelling when we see Hoffman's previously mild (repressed) character experience some glee during and after the bloodbath. He is, in the moment, delighted to discover that he can match up to the raw fury of the country lads, before any guilt or self-reproach sets in. No sense of this with in the new film, or perhaps it was too 'subtle' for me to notice.
Then there is the infamous rape scene. Watching the remake's 'making of', the producer expressed his disgust at the fact that George's character in the original is shown to experience some element of enjoyment in the rape scene. It makes the original scene repellent indeed, but also very interesting. Peckinpah has depicted the original Amy as quite an immature and fickle young woman, who courts attention, and enjoys it when she receives it - until it goes horribly too far.
The new scene is horrible to watch as well - it's quite clear that there is absolutely no element of subtle encouragement from Amy - and while this is true and appropriate, it certainly also makes her character less complex than Amy of the original.
Yes, this is a glossy, well-made, and superficial retake on Peckinpah's film.
***SPOILER ALERT***
Two points I'd quickly like to touch on in closing...
1. I did not really appreciate hearing the producer of the new film denigrating Peckinpah's film. For instance, he was critiquing the choice to make David a mathematician in the original film. Apparently the contrast between David and Amy was too extreme. The original was an extreme film (especially when it was released) that wanted to make a strong point about the 'civilized' man's relationship to violence, and it did so in a way that the remake couldn't. 'Rationalising' David's character by making him a screenwriter instead of a mathematician does nothing.
2. One review claimed that 'Peckinpah rubbed our noses in the bloodlust. Lurie invites objectivity.' ...Really?
The original had some shocking violence, but quite frankly, I was stunned at how much blood and guts splattered across the screen in this remake, or indeed how long the camera lingered closely on Charlie's head after it had been 'bear-trapped'...
And WHY THE BLIP did we need to see Jeremy's bone protruding from his forearm after the accident? What does this add...?
That's all.
Tell Your Friends