Oooooh spooky. An old Rhode Island farmhouse in the 1970s. A loving family of husband, wife, five young daughters move in. Creaky doors, stopped clocks and a lot of much, much worse nastiness breaks out. Husband and wife university lecturers with a young daughter and a sideline in 'supernatural investigations' try to help.
From such a simple story, a gripping and at times terrifying movie has been made. The mystery of who or what is terrorising this normal family is kept under wraps for approximately the first half of the movie, and I did not guess exactly who was the host until it was revealed. Maybe because I was concentrating on "what the hell is that?" as each new episode unfolded.
The movie has a good mixture of genuinely spooky, hair-raising moments, and noisy, jump out of your seat slaps in the face. It moves along at a cracking pace. Director James Wan has good experience for this as the director of the original Saw and other scary/horror movies such as Insidious.
The acting is solid all round if not outstanding. Ron Livingston and Lili Taylor are sympathetic as the parents just trying to rid their family of these scary events, while all the young actresses endure the horrific events very bravely and convincingly. Patrick Wilson (Watchmen) is extremely handsome in his early 70s gear but a little too perfect as man of the cloth and demon fighter Ed Warren. Vera Farmiga (Up in the Air, Source Code) is probably the best as Lorraine Warren, who uses her gift of 'the sight' rather than religious conviction to help her husband fight off supernatural beings. She is an extremely empathetic character and her natural warmth is much needed in what would otherwise be a fairly chilly movie.
The only downside I can think of looking back at it now is that there is a complete lack of scepticism on behalf of any character in the film. Every person that becomes involved in the tale immediately believes and accepts what is going on and that the Warrens can fix it. Which slightly reduces the effectiveness of the fact that the Warrens are indeed real people and the Rhode Island family was real and were helped by the Warrens. You may know them from the more famous "Amityville" case which has been made into movies a few times now (you can look up their adventures on Wikipedia or the New England Centre for Psychic Research) . However I'm sure that in real life, there would have been someone who initially thought this was "all in the mind" or that there was some rational explanation for the events that were occurring. But despite all that, there seems to be a belief by the Warrens and many others that they have in fact captured enough evidence of demonic possessions to be convinced. So be warned, this could be a real story!
So is it the scariest movie ever? Close! But not quite for me, I was more nervous and scared in last year's Sinister. But a good scary movie should have you a bit nervous as you unlock the front door or settle in to go to sleep, and it certainly did that. Thinking of some scenes days later still evokes a shiver. Mission accomplished I'd say.
Friday 26 July 2013
Movie #18 - World War Z
As my very intelligent man said "If you don't think of this as a zombie movie, you can really find it to be a good movie".
Very loosely based on the popular novel by Max Brooks, World War Z takes a global apocalypse and looks at it through the eyes of a single man. How is this possible? By creating a character not in the book, which is Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) who used to work for the United Nations in a never-quite-explained job involving going into high risk zones. Now out of the UN and a contented family man in Philadelphia, Gerry and his wife are stuck in a traffic jam which turns out to be no ordinary day. The movie has barely begun when we are thrown into a tense, chaotic scenario along with Gerry and his family as emergency services vehicles fly by with sirens blazing and people start attacking others. Narrowly escaping, Gerry is contacted by his UN boss and told to get to a safe extraction point so they can get them out - Gerry is needed by the UN to investigate the origin and cause of the outbreak. Cue Gerry flying in and out of different countries, having a series of exciting adventures.
While this has been referred to as a zombie movie, you should not go expecting the usual slow moving undead searching for brains and guts to munch on. This movie is much more akin to the excellent "28 Days Later" from a few years back which had an outbreak of a virus which caused intense rage. This movie has fast moving people attacking others but there is very little goriness. Some may be disappointed with this, but if you give it a chance it is actually a very good mystery thriller.
I found it to be extremely tense for long stretches of time, and the guy sitting beside me was literally on the edge of his seat regularly. This is largely due to the director (Marc Forster) deciding to use a lot of handheld style shots with narrow focus so that it felt quite chaotic and close and you don't really know what's going on. It really gave you a sense of 'being there' which I know I felt would be really scary. There are a few large scale shots, particularly in Israel, but the majority of the action takes place in close confines.
There are few other characters who make an impact since the movie is full of whirlwind visits to each country in Gerry's quest for clues and answers. A female Israeli soldier is probably the best support as she bravely helps a man she doesn't know, against seeming incredibly odds. Gerry's wife is well drawn as a reason for him to take on this crazy task but doesn't get much else to do. Brad Pitt really has to carry this movie and he does a sensational job of doing just that.
This is not a zombie movie and I really liked it.
Very loosely based on the popular novel by Max Brooks, World War Z takes a global apocalypse and looks at it through the eyes of a single man. How is this possible? By creating a character not in the book, which is Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) who used to work for the United Nations in a never-quite-explained job involving going into high risk zones. Now out of the UN and a contented family man in Philadelphia, Gerry and his wife are stuck in a traffic jam which turns out to be no ordinary day. The movie has barely begun when we are thrown into a tense, chaotic scenario along with Gerry and his family as emergency services vehicles fly by with sirens blazing and people start attacking others. Narrowly escaping, Gerry is contacted by his UN boss and told to get to a safe extraction point so they can get them out - Gerry is needed by the UN to investigate the origin and cause of the outbreak. Cue Gerry flying in and out of different countries, having a series of exciting adventures.
While this has been referred to as a zombie movie, you should not go expecting the usual slow moving undead searching for brains and guts to munch on. This movie is much more akin to the excellent "28 Days Later" from a few years back which had an outbreak of a virus which caused intense rage. This movie has fast moving people attacking others but there is very little goriness. Some may be disappointed with this, but if you give it a chance it is actually a very good mystery thriller.
I found it to be extremely tense for long stretches of time, and the guy sitting beside me was literally on the edge of his seat regularly. This is largely due to the director (Marc Forster) deciding to use a lot of handheld style shots with narrow focus so that it felt quite chaotic and close and you don't really know what's going on. It really gave you a sense of 'being there' which I know I felt would be really scary. There are a few large scale shots, particularly in Israel, but the majority of the action takes place in close confines.
There are few other characters who make an impact since the movie is full of whirlwind visits to each country in Gerry's quest for clues and answers. A female Israeli soldier is probably the best support as she bravely helps a man she doesn't know, against seeming incredibly odds. Gerry's wife is well drawn as a reason for him to take on this crazy task but doesn't get much else to do. Brad Pitt really has to carry this movie and he does a sensational job of doing just that.
This is not a zombie movie and I really liked it.
Sunday 14 July 2013
Movie #17 - The Lone Ranger
Surprise #1 - this is a Disney movie? Surprise #2 - it's not as bad as the critics have made out.
The Lone Ranger is an entertaining piece of fluff with the occasional bursts of violence (it's not for young kids at all). We have three main groups in the movie - the Texas Rangers (lawmen of the Wild West), a gang of hardened criminals led by Butch Cavendish (played by familiar face William Fichtner) and a group putting a railway across the country (led by another familiar face, Brit Tom Wilkinson). How these three groups interrelate will slowly be revealed with a surprisingly dense plot for a fun action flick.
The film opens with a great setpiece where main character John Reid (Armie Hammer who played both Winklevoss twins in The Social Network) is travelling by train to hometown Colby where he is taking up a position as District Attorney. On board is Butch Cavendish who is due to face justice for his brutal crimes, chained up with Tonto (Johnny Depp) whose only crime is being an Indian. Waiting in Colby is Dan Reid (John's brother) and his fellow Texas Rangers who will supervise Cavendish's trial. As Cavendish's associates attempt to free him from the train, Tonto and John cross paths with Cavendish and each other and a train crash.
The Rangers then go in search of Cavendish and his gang, leaving behind Dan's wife, who just happens to be John's ex-flame from many years ago, and his son, to keep the homestead safe despite the Indians who seem to be moving across the river against the white man. It's no spoiler to say that a tragedy occurs which leaves Dan as the lone surviving Ranger. And that he will cross paths with Tonto again and again as the film becomes about two men's search for justice, even though they have different definitions of justice. John's struggle with using the law to mete out justice in a savage world is well portrayed.
If you do go and see this movie, be prepared that it is quite long. This is the fault of the framing device which they have used, which could have been completely dropped out and the movie would have kept up a rollicking pace while losing nothing. The framing device is a young kid, dressed in Lone Ranger costume, who ventures into a sideshow display of the Wild West in the 1930s and begins a conversation with an elderly Indian who claims to be the legendary "Tonto". This adds nothing other than jolting you out of the action which is being told in flashback.
Enough about the negatives though. The positives are that it knows it's pretty dumb and just has fun with it, and the CGI action is well executed and mixed with real stunts (check out the YouTube video of Depp's horse fall). Johnny Depp is definitely still in 'Jack Sparrow' mode with his 'dumb but cunning' schtick as Tonto, and he does get all the funny lines. Everyone else is pretty serious. Armie Hammer has the perfect square jaw, tall build, deep voice and furrowed brow to play the conflicted hero. The crooks are all pretty evil and boo-worthy. Ruth Wilson is passable as the feisty damsel in distress. Helena Bonham Carter steals yet another film with a funny cameo.
If you have a spare two hours (plus trailers etc) and want to turn your brain off and be entertained, you could do a lot worse. Also the thundering William Tell overture (the Lone Ranger TV show theme song) over the top of the final scenes will leave any music lovers with a happy grin and humming it for ages.
The Lone Ranger is an entertaining piece of fluff with the occasional bursts of violence (it's not for young kids at all). We have three main groups in the movie - the Texas Rangers (lawmen of the Wild West), a gang of hardened criminals led by Butch Cavendish (played by familiar face William Fichtner) and a group putting a railway across the country (led by another familiar face, Brit Tom Wilkinson). How these three groups interrelate will slowly be revealed with a surprisingly dense plot for a fun action flick.
The film opens with a great setpiece where main character John Reid (Armie Hammer who played both Winklevoss twins in The Social Network) is travelling by train to hometown Colby where he is taking up a position as District Attorney. On board is Butch Cavendish who is due to face justice for his brutal crimes, chained up with Tonto (Johnny Depp) whose only crime is being an Indian. Waiting in Colby is Dan Reid (John's brother) and his fellow Texas Rangers who will supervise Cavendish's trial. As Cavendish's associates attempt to free him from the train, Tonto and John cross paths with Cavendish and each other and a train crash.
The Rangers then go in search of Cavendish and his gang, leaving behind Dan's wife, who just happens to be John's ex-flame from many years ago, and his son, to keep the homestead safe despite the Indians who seem to be moving across the river against the white man. It's no spoiler to say that a tragedy occurs which leaves Dan as the lone surviving Ranger. And that he will cross paths with Tonto again and again as the film becomes about two men's search for justice, even though they have different definitions of justice. John's struggle with using the law to mete out justice in a savage world is well portrayed.
If you do go and see this movie, be prepared that it is quite long. This is the fault of the framing device which they have used, which could have been completely dropped out and the movie would have kept up a rollicking pace while losing nothing. The framing device is a young kid, dressed in Lone Ranger costume, who ventures into a sideshow display of the Wild West in the 1930s and begins a conversation with an elderly Indian who claims to be the legendary "Tonto". This adds nothing other than jolting you out of the action which is being told in flashback.
Enough about the negatives though. The positives are that it knows it's pretty dumb and just has fun with it, and the CGI action is well executed and mixed with real stunts (check out the YouTube video of Depp's horse fall). Johnny Depp is definitely still in 'Jack Sparrow' mode with his 'dumb but cunning' schtick as Tonto, and he does get all the funny lines. Everyone else is pretty serious. Armie Hammer has the perfect square jaw, tall build, deep voice and furrowed brow to play the conflicted hero. The crooks are all pretty evil and boo-worthy. Ruth Wilson is passable as the feisty damsel in distress. Helena Bonham Carter steals yet another film with a funny cameo.
If you have a spare two hours (plus trailers etc) and want to turn your brain off and be entertained, you could do a lot worse. Also the thundering William Tell overture (the Lone Ranger TV show theme song) over the top of the final scenes will leave any music lovers with a happy grin and humming it for ages.
Saturday 6 July 2013
This is 40 - Short DVD Review
This is 40 is a Judd Apatow (director of 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up etc etc) production starring Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann (Apatow's wife) as a married couple struggling to admit that they are hitting the big 4-0 and having a few financial issues, with Apatow and Mann's real life daughters as the two squabbling daughters.
This movie is awful. It's 2 hours of people shouting at each other or saying really awful things to each other or interacting really awkwardly. If this is what marriage is like, I'm so glad I haven't done it. If this is what having kids is like, I'm glad I haven't done that either. I admit there were a few moments in this movie where I laughed (mainly Melissa McCarthy's scenes) but you can see most of them in the trailer. This is 2 hours of my life I'll never get back and I was wishing it was over while we were watching it. A rare fail by Mr Apatow and his troupe of usually good comedians.
I'd give this a 3 out of 10.
This movie is awful. It's 2 hours of people shouting at each other or saying really awful things to each other or interacting really awkwardly. If this is what marriage is like, I'm so glad I haven't done it. If this is what having kids is like, I'm glad I haven't done that either. I admit there were a few moments in this movie where I laughed (mainly Melissa McCarthy's scenes) but you can see most of them in the trailer. This is 2 hours of my life I'll never get back and I was wishing it was over while we were watching it. A rare fail by Mr Apatow and his troupe of usually good comedians.
I'd give this a 3 out of 10.
Movie #16 - The Great Gatsby
The Great Gatsby tells the story from the point of view of Nick Carraway (well played by long time Leo associate Toby Maguire of Spiderman fame), an innocent young man from the Midwest who moves to New York to make a fortune working at the Stock Exchange. Living in a small worker's cottage in the outer suburbs, he spies on his neighbour, the mysterious Jay Gatsby (Leonardo diCapria) who throws massive lavish parties but nobody knows who he really is. Nick is soon befriended by Gatsby, much to his delight and confusion at the same time as to why he has been chosen. Nick also regularly visits his cousin Daisy (Carey Mulligan, best known for Drive) who has moved from the Midwest to marry Tom Buchanan (Aussie Joel Edgerton relishing a juicy role), a rich former polo player who provides everything and allows her to enjoy a 'society' life.
Poor naïve Nick soon becomes enamoured with the lifestyle of Daisy, Tom (who has a very dark side) and Gatsby, but things turn sour once he is made aware that Daisy and Gatsby have a past connection. From there, events become very dramatic and the big parties featured strongly in the fizzy trailer for the film disappear. There seem to be some who think the movie was too much of a love story compared to the novel, but I didn't think it was much of a love story at all. For a start, it is told from the viewpoint of Nick so you never really get a sense of the reason for the love between the characters. Also it seems to be more about obsession than love.
I've not read the classic novel by F Scott Fitzgerald on which it was based so I can't comment on how faithful it is. But I did think it was a very good commentary on the social issues of the time, you just have to dig a little deeper to find it than you might with other movies that shove the moral down your throat. The Great American dream (fame and fortune, celebrity obsession) is as alive and well today as it was back in the 1920s when Fitzgerald was writing, and it is touched on in a fairly subtle way for most of the running time.
The Great Gatsby may be on a few peoples' Avoid lists, since it is the latest film directed by Baz Luhrman who people seem to either love or hate. With Strictly Ballroom, Romeo & Juliet, Moulin Rouge and Australia in his back catalogue, you could certainly expect Gatsby to be a flamboyant, extravagant, pretty film which entertains but doesn't really make you think too much. I like most of Baz's stuff and if you look hard there are some big issues in his films, they're just not really obvious. If you don't like Baz and were thinking about not seeing Gatsby, I'd suggest you think again, as it is not the typical Baz Luhrman picture. Yes, there are magnificent sets, props and costumes (for which he is well known). Yes, there is a deliberate clash of period setting with modern day pop and rap music, but it's not as jarring as it was in Moulin Rouge and I think the selections suited the scenes. However, the storyline and acting are a cut above the usual. The drama is a lot more serious and there are not many laughs to be had at all.
I enjoyed this movie a lot, even though it was quite different than I thought it would be. A final note on the 3D version is that you should not waste any money on the 3D version. It did not add much at all.
Poor naïve Nick soon becomes enamoured with the lifestyle of Daisy, Tom (who has a very dark side) and Gatsby, but things turn sour once he is made aware that Daisy and Gatsby have a past connection. From there, events become very dramatic and the big parties featured strongly in the fizzy trailer for the film disappear. There seem to be some who think the movie was too much of a love story compared to the novel, but I didn't think it was much of a love story at all. For a start, it is told from the viewpoint of Nick so you never really get a sense of the reason for the love between the characters. Also it seems to be more about obsession than love.
I've not read the classic novel by F Scott Fitzgerald on which it was based so I can't comment on how faithful it is. But I did think it was a very good commentary on the social issues of the time, you just have to dig a little deeper to find it than you might with other movies that shove the moral down your throat. The Great American dream (fame and fortune, celebrity obsession) is as alive and well today as it was back in the 1920s when Fitzgerald was writing, and it is touched on in a fairly subtle way for most of the running time.
The Great Gatsby may be on a few peoples' Avoid lists, since it is the latest film directed by Baz Luhrman who people seem to either love or hate. With Strictly Ballroom, Romeo & Juliet, Moulin Rouge and Australia in his back catalogue, you could certainly expect Gatsby to be a flamboyant, extravagant, pretty film which entertains but doesn't really make you think too much. I like most of Baz's stuff and if you look hard there are some big issues in his films, they're just not really obvious. If you don't like Baz and were thinking about not seeing Gatsby, I'd suggest you think again, as it is not the typical Baz Luhrman picture. Yes, there are magnificent sets, props and costumes (for which he is well known). Yes, there is a deliberate clash of period setting with modern day pop and rap music, but it's not as jarring as it was in Moulin Rouge and I think the selections suited the scenes. However, the storyline and acting are a cut above the usual. The drama is a lot more serious and there are not many laughs to be had at all.
I enjoyed this movie a lot, even though it was quite different than I thought it would be. A final note on the 3D version is that you should not waste any money on the 3D version. It did not add much at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)