Change Your Image
Da-Ant
Reviews
Rubber (2010)
A horror film about technique and style
"The film you are about to see is an homage to 'no reason', that most powerful element of style." This is the manifesto that opens Rubber, delivered directly to the audience in a breaking of the fourth wall that is somewhat like taking a pound of dynamite to a pane of glass.
Rubber is a "horror" film about a black rubber car tyre that kills people by making their heads explode. With telepathy. And when I say "horror" I do of course mean "side-splittingly funny, pitch black, absurdist comedy." The opening scenes of Rubber are a deliberate assault on the separation between the audience and the film. Normally the opening sequence of a film seeks to bring you into the world of the film; the audience is encouraged to step through the silver screen and forget about the real world for the duration of the story. Rubber perverts these expectations. The film comes crashing through the screen, into the world of the audience. It reminds us at every turn that we are watching a film, and indeed that the very act of our watching is what makes the film happen.
There are actually two plot lines at work in Rubber. The first concerns a murderous inanimate object , an innocent but spirited young woman on the run from some troubled element of her past, and the county sheriff on the trail of the vulcanised psychopath. This is ostensibly the core thread of the movie, but we soon see that this action only serves as a literal distraction for the audience, who exist in the film, embodied as actual participants, though ones who remain clearly and distinctly removed from the action, watching events at a distance through field glasses. This distraction covers the real story, that of the sheriff, who is in fact the antagonist of the story, attempting to kill off the audience (through the manoeuvrings of his toady, The Accountant) so that the film can end and he can go home.
The movie within the movie begins with a sequence that could have come straight from Leone's scrapbook. A man lies face down in a desert. Slowly, he rises, and shakes himself off. He staggers along, and falls. He rises again, and continues to stagger on, through the endless desert. Except that the "man" in question is a rubber tyre (Roger, according to the credits). This is the brilliance of Rubber; that it can appropriate the cinematic language that we are so familiar with, and apply it to situations that cannot be anything but utterly absurd.
Other scenes lift from a variety of sources, including a sequence that takes place in what is clearly the Bates hotel from the original Psycho. For a film that claims to be dedicated to meaninglessness, it is ironic that not a single frame is without a clear purpose. Every shot serves to either ensconce us in the impossible world of a rubber tyre who murders people, or tear us forcibly out of it, as we return repeatedly to the plight of the poor audience, stranded in the desert with no food, and prey to depredations of a murderous cast member, or possibly character. It's never clear whether the antagonist is an actor who wants to stop playing his role, or a character in a story who wants the story itself to end; the latter appeals, if only for its deeply apocalyptic subtext. When the film ends, where does the character go?).
Even the choice of the supposed villain must have taken a great deal of thought. It's such an elegant choice; an object capable of locomotion, but without moving parts to cutely animate. Something that has an element of menace (after all, a tyre, attached to a vehicle, can do a lot of damage), but is also innately ridiculous. An object that can fulfill the emotive needs of the film yet has remarkably little capacity to emote. Consider that all this thing can do is roll forward, roll backwards, fall over, stand up, and vibrate its sides. That's a sum total of five things you can ask your star to do for you on screen. As a film-making challenge alone, that's a spectacular feat to undertake.
I could go on for days about the tiniest of "seemingly irrelevant but incredibly well thought out" details that litter the film. That Rubber invites such complex readings is a testament to the subtlety that underlies the simple brilliance of the film itself. Whatever you may think about the subtext and meaning of this supposedly meaningless film, it doesn't really matter if Rubber "means" anything or not, because whatever else it may be, the film is absolutely hilarious. We are talking literal "tears of laughter" funny here.
Quentin Dupieux provides us with excellent cinematography, full of lingering establishing shots and vivid, often deliberately off-frame close-ups, and the cast all turn in magnificent performances, especially Jack Plotnick, who demonstrates the ability to carry a scene from laugh out loud funny to deeply uncomfortable in a matter of seconds. The script is tightly written, and the humour builds on itself in layers, rising from the initial "WTF?" moments of nervous laughter to the farcical crescendo of the closing scenes, where every element of the film collides in a scene that, if nothing else, will mean that I'll never look at tricycles the same way again.
I could continue to pick at Rubber, pulling out detail after detail, examining each one in turn to find new facets, new thoughts and revelations. None of that really matters though; what you need to know is that Rubber is the strangest, funniest, and most dazzlingly original film you will see this year, and considering that Scott Pilgrim vs The World just came out, that's one hell of an achievement.
Originally from http://www.rgbfilter.com/?p=9032
The Last Exorcism (2010)
Strong characters lift The Last Exorcism above genre fare
The basic premise of The Last Exorcism, directed by Daniel Stamm and written by Huck Botko and Andrew Gurland, is that of a documentary crew doing a piece on the life of Reverend Cotton Marcus, played by Patrick Fabian. A Louisiana preacher of the fire and brimstone variety, Cotton proves that the delivery of the word is sometimes more important than the word itself, as he proves on camera when he delivers a fiery sermon on banana bread. As part of his role as southern preacher, Cotton has performed hundreds of exorcisms, but as he's matured is experiencing a crisis of faith. He still does the fire and brimstone routine, but he's lost his mojo. With thousands of followers via his website, he still receives requests to perform exorcisms, but takes a much more secular approach, while giving his congregation the religious experience they seek.
With a documentary crew in tow, he picks a random exorcism request of the top of his pile and they proceed to record the journey, which takes them to the Sweetzer farm, to cast the demon of of farmer's daughter Nell (Ashley Bell). From there, the story is fraught with the kind of jump scares, and genuinely creepy moments that you would expect from a mash up of The Exorcist and The Blair Witch Project, with a few twists of its own thrown in for good measure. What was unexpected is the amount of sympathy the script manages to evoke for each of the characters, the good Reverend in particular. Every major character in the story, from the Rev to the family seemingly beleaguered by a demon is well rounded, and although based on stereotypes, manages to break the mold in one way or another. As the final scenes unfold, there is genuine emotional attachment to their respective fates. It seems that lately,most horror films have settled on cookie cutter characters, who's personal arcs are pretty predictable from the first frame they appear on screen. In that sense, The Last Exorcism is a horror rarity with films like Let The Right One In and The House Of The Devil (and maybe in a more twisted vein, The Devil's Rejects), that actually gives you people to care about.
The story is really the story of Cotton Marcus, and Patrick Fabian's performance is top notch. It's tough to say anything without giving away the story, but Cotton starts out being one step above a con man, and evolves to become a truly sympathetic character as he relates why his faith was challenged. The performances of the Sweetzer family are all great as well, as the father (played by Louis Herthum) and brother (portrayed Caleb Landry Jones) appear to be largely the stereotypes we expect at the beginning, and become something more by the end.
Special note needs to be made of Ashley Bell's performance as Nell Sweetzer, the apparently 'possessed' girl. In calmer scenes, she gets a chance to play a convincing childlike sixteen year old, and manages to switch over to raw evil in a heartbeat. It's the scenes where she's 'taken over' that she gets to pull out all the stops. The film makers decided to forego complex FX make-up and CGI, for these scenes, instead relying on lighting and Ashley Bell's natural ability to contort her body in painful ways when the demon takes over. Whether it took a lot of training to warp herself that way, or she's naturally double jointed, it's impressive.
Like the all natural approach taken with the Nell character's 'possession' scenes, the gore is actually quite restrained compared to many contemporary horror films, especially those with Eli Roth's name attached. Despite this, there's a single scene in the movie involving an animal which took me out of the film, and serves no real purpose beyond being downright sadistic. I can see why it would be there, given the circumstances at that point in the film, but as someone with some intestinal fortitude, even I found it somewhat gratuitous, and frankly, out of place in the movie.
The other issues mainly have to do with the tropes of the 'found footage' sub-genre of horror film making:
* Who found the footage, and why are they presenting it?
* Couldn't they have edited out the audio beeps and black frames?
* Why didn't the cameraman just get the hell up outta Dodge?
* In what context are they editing the 'found footage', and why don't they tell us what happened next?
* What's with all the running in the forest at night?
It's a tough narrative framework to get around. Unlike a traditional film where the frame subconsciously disappears as you're drawn into the story, the conceit of the faux documentary puts every little technical detail from lighting to film stock out as a storytelling element. When it doesn't come together 'just so', you run a much higher risk of taking the audience out of the film. The Last Exorcism does suffer from these issues, but the script is tight enough that it was only for a moment here and there.
The pacing, which starts with a slow burn that ratchets up to a breakneck speed by the final act, is solid, and the film ends on a satisfying note. Even with the momentarily falterings due to the faux documentary trappings, the well-drawn characters and solid performances not only save the movie, but manage elevate it beyond the genres it mashes up. Cotton Marcus is one of the most interesting, engaging and, well, human, horror movie protagonists I've seen in a long time.
Originally posted at http://www.rgbfilter.com/?p=8690
The Last Lovecraft: Relic of Cthulhu (2009)
Fun 80's style horror comedy
The Last Lovecraft: Relic Of Cthulhu kicked off the opening gala at the 5th annual Toronto After Dark Film Festival last night, and also marked the film's international premiere. The film a horror comedy that sits in the same space as Jack Brooks Monster Slayer and, reaching back a bit, the original Tremors. While I'm not sure it's bound for cult classic status, the film does have it's moments, and offers a humorous take on the Lovecraftian mythos, including an opening credit sequence that was reminiscent of the 80's cult classic Re-Animator.
The basic premise is that the world H.P. Lovecraft envisioned was more fact than fiction, and the reason he could write about the nameless horrors is because of a genetic disposition that allows his bloodline to avoid going absolutely mad when confronted with the evil of the Old Ones. A secret society has existed to protect the world from Cthulhu, but now that the second half of an ancient artifact has been uncovered (coincidentally just as the starts are aligning), only the last descendant of the horror writer can save the world. That would be Jeff (Kyle Davis), a sometimes awkward office worker, who has no idea of his lineage. Luckily his best friend and room mate Charlie (Devin McGinn) is more well versed in Lovecraftian lore, and after being confronted with the initial threats, the adventure ensues.
Once the basic premise is out of the way, the story arc is pretty well tread ground. What keeps The Last Lovecraft entertaining enough is the comedy, which for the most part hits all the right notes. Some of it felt forced, but it was pretty rare, and there are a couple of stand out performances, especially from Barak Hardley as Paul, a high school friend and Lovecraft nerd who joins them on their quest, and the mysterious Captain Olaf, played by Gregg Lawrence.
If you're going to do a creature feature, you need to have some good monster effects, and on this front, the film certainly delivers. Most of the creatures ride the line between creepy and silly, with a couple of notable exceptions either way. The sucker fish creature which appears in the trailer is most definitely on the silly side, but the spawn that attack a group of camping teenagers work well in delivering some chills.
Some of the most enjoyable parts of the movie for me were the animated sequences, including a comic book style recap of the history of the Old Ones coming to Earth during the time of the dinosaurs. There are some great sequences with the animated Cthulhu fighting dinosaurs, especially notable is the point where he uses a recently decapitated triceratops head as a shield.
When making a low budget movie of this nature, it's very often a labour of love for everyone involved, and that love comes across on film. That's because the budgetary constraints mean making sacrifices that larger films don't have to worry about, and as someone who who's got a soft spot for these types of moves, it's tough to be critical. There are problems though, mainly in the pacing and the editing. There were a few points, such as the camping teenagers scene mentioned above, where just knowing when to cut would have made a difference in how things played out.
Even with some of the largely technical problems that come with an indie film, The Last Lovecraft is a fun horror-comedy romp with some great moments, and makes for a great popcorn flick. It manages to evoke notes from other horror-comedy classics while remaining it's own beast, which is something tough to pull off at any budget, when it comes to genre films.
At the end of the film, Devin McGinn, who plays Charlie and also wrote and produced the film, took to the stage, along with director Henry Saine, for a Q & A session, and were joined by other cast members. It's clear that they all enjoyed working together, and if all goes well, we'll be seeing the sequel sometime down the road. Let's hope it'll be making it's premiere at Toronto After Dark sooner as opposed to later.
This review originally appeared at http://www.rgbfilter.com/?p=8607
Exorcist: The Beginning (2004)
A complete mess
*** Warning: Possible SPOILERS ***
First my perspective:
I'm not a long time fan of the original. It wasn't until the early 80's that I saw the Exorcist as a teenager. I liked it more when I saw it as an adult and really liked the re-release on the big screen. The sequels didn't do anything to make the impression better (though III had it's moments).
That being said, this story of a disillusioned Father Merrin is a complete mess. After a poorly handled opening scene of a bloodied battlefield, we are given the basic rundown. It is shortly after WWII (1949 I don't recall for sure). An old Byzantine church has turned up in a part of Africa, and it has been dated to a time before Christianity should have reached that part of the world. Merrin, who gave up being a priest during the war because of atrocities he was a witness, and unwilling participant of have made him renounce his faith.
What will happen to make Merrin return to the cloth? What secrets does this old church hold?
It means that there will a LOT of cheap scares, bad CGI and matte painting, a couple of really gross set pieces and a final exorcism that has been injected with a bit of World Wrestling Entertainment style "pizazz". In other words, nothing scary or creepy, or worthy of bearing the name The Exorcist.
The big problem is that the movie is trying to go in three different directions at once, and doesn't pick one path. Instead, it tries to be all things to all horror fans, and fails miserably at making anyone happy.
It's not a psychological thriller, which both the original and III had to different degrees.
It's not an all out gore fest, for those who love Romero, early Raimi and the such.
It's not a sprawling epic that suggests an otherworldly evil that could threaten the world as a whole, either.
In the end I came out neither scared, chilled or disturbed on a emotional level, which is why this is ultimately a huge failure as a horror film.
It has to be said that Stellan Skarsgård did an excellent job as Merrin, even with a terrible script. None of the actors can be faulted here. Most of the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the studio and the "writing team", and a slightly smaller portion rests with Renny Harlin.
I knew that there was another version shot and subsequently scrapped by the studio. If that ever sees the light of day, it sounds like it would have been a much better movie. After all, studio did can it for being "too cerebral". Imagine that, a smart horror movie. I thought they gave up on that a decade ago (with few exceptions).
Oh well, save your money.
2/10
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)
Pointless
The "New" Texas Chainsaw Massacre was a lackluster experience, to say the least. Of course, the source material is pretty weak to start with, as I've never been a huge fan of the original, although I've seen it on more than one occasion.
In the original, there wasn't much characterization, to say the least. At least the original had the one annoying victim that everyone hopes will get it. In this remake, the 5 hapless youths are all downright annoying, to the point where I WANTED them all dead. This could be an interesting take, if done deliberately, but in the case of this film, I think it's just a case of shoddy scripting.
The makers of this dullard of a film should have looked at either the X-Files episode "Home" that featured an killer in-bred hick family to much better effect, both in horror AND humour, not to mention emotion.
Maybe they should also looked at House of 1000 Corpses, as it covers basically the same plot territory as TCM, but at least 1000 Corpses knows that the "plot" alone isn't going to carry the day.
I really don't see any point in dragging out this review much more, so I'll sum it up this way. This movie would probably be best enjoyed by neophytes of horror film. Real fans of the genre should stay away.
Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)
Distilled for your enjoyment
When it comes to alcohol, Absinthe comes in two main varieties, distilled (which is the purer form) and "Mixed and Macerated", where the additional herbal ingredients are blended after the distilling process. In general, pure distilled Absinthe is both more palatable, and more effective.
A master distiller of any intoxicating beverage draws on tradition, and experiments to not only pay tribute to that past, but to give the world his own creation; to leave his mark.
Kill Bill is a heady mixture of pure action, drawing on numerous inspirations, blended to perfection, and distilled onto film. From an unlikely mix of anime, spaghetti westerns and grindhouse comes a concoction in which each ingredient can be tasted and identified on sampling, but the sum is what makes it unique, and more than it's parts.
At the same time, it is infused with Tarantino's unique brand of humour and emotion. The liquid flows freely from the screen to the bloodstream, leaving one both intoxicated and wanting more by the end.
The more familiar you are with the ingredients at work here, the more you'll appreciate the fine blending techniques that Tarantino has used to achieve the end result. Even if you aren't familiar with any of the genres at work, maybe a taste of Kill Bill will whet your appetite for more, as there is a reason Tarantino IS paying tribute to this stuff. If you want to know the history behind it, I'd suggest looking at the imdb message board with all the reference being listed.
It's not a drink for everyone, and most definitely an acquired taste, but if you don't try it, you'll never know. And that would be the biggest shame.
Daredevil (2003)
Comic Book Noir done right.
Daredevil is the movie Batman SHOULD have been. Unlike Burton's Batman, which tries to make a dark movie just by having a dark set, Daredevil isn't afraid to question the moral authority of the main character just because he is a superhero.
Although the director doesn't have the visual flair (or the big name)that Sam Raimi, Tim Burton or Bryan Singer, the proof of this movie is in the story, and that's where Daredevil shines. It's about a character whose dual life actual conflicts with each other, on one hand a vengeful vigilante, and the other an (honest!) attorney who stays well within the bounds of the law. Unlike other superhero movies, where the characterizations are pure black and white, the movie Daredevil doesn't mind getting it's hands dirty. It's okay for the hero to question himself, and not be perfect, because besides his superpowers, he is still human, and like all of us, is fallible.
I also find it interesting that so many people are attacking Affleck and Johnson, not so much for their work here, but because of past atrocities. Now, Affleck is an actor I can take or leave. He's never annoyed me like he does many, but he's never impressed me all that much, either. In the role of Murdock/Daredevil, he works. He definitely has the physical presence for the superhero role, and his kind of bland charisma actually works in his favour for the Murdock role, as in the Miller comics, Matt Murdock WAS kind of a stick in the mud, except when Elektra was around. She gave him life.
The writer/director did a GREAT job on the script, for the most part capturing the essence of Miller's Daredevil. His direction, though not as flashy as Raimi or Burton, wasn't bad, and, at least unlike the cheeseball Burton, never overpowers the script.
Daredevil definitely deserves, if not the best comic book adaptation, then definitely the smartest. It definitely holds it's own against Spiderman and Superman, is superior than X-Men, and whips the pants off Batman. Of course, for those who like their action with a black and white moral point of view, steer clear.
Mulholland Dr. (2001)
As Homer said...
As Homer Simpson said of Twin Peaks...
"Brilliant! I have no idea what's going on."
So true of this movie. I think it's David Lynch at his most cryptic, as some of my friends argue about which half was reality, let alone what was happening in that reality.
Unfortunately, unlike any other Lynch movie, I think maybe there isn't an overall theme or concept that ties it all together. Granted, I've only seen it once so far, and many have commented that it needs to be seen 3 times. I disagree. If the movie doesn't hold up under the first viewing, then there is a real sense of loss with viewing it. The structure of the film is compelling, and the lead actresses were great, especially Betty/Diane. Very versatile performance, as the movie demanded a LOT from her. I think that ultimately, viewers just have to make up their own minds, as there is no ONE accurate interpretation to this film, and I suspect that multiple viewing would lead to completely different takes. I probably WILL watch it again, but I suspect that there isn't a true internal logic to this movie, which can be evidenced by the fact that over half of it was originally a TV pilot, and extra footage was shot to make it a feature. I think this provides the evidence that the sense of cohesiveness was shoe-horned in after the fact by Lynch.
Unlike Lost Highway, which was just as "out there" and still his best work to date.
Mulholland Dr. is a distant third (I still love Eraserhead to no end - in fact I watched it just after Mulholland Dr).