Change Your Image
svarta_skuggan
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Sinister 2 (2015)
This sequel makes the original look like a horror classic.
Now, I'm one of those who looks leniently on modern horror films. Sure the story doesn't make sense in some films, but the acting and directing can be a saving grace -- or vice versa. I mean we're not talking about a genre that gets Oscars. So I found the original "Sinister" film to be quite entertaining despite its flaws. It established a mythology surrounding the mystery and the ending was a twist nobody saw coming.
Fast forward to the sequel. It wrongfully assumes that you've seen the original one because we're introduced to a main character who played a secondary role in the first one and the audience is expected to know who he is, his back story and motives. The main story is about a mother with two sons who tries to escape from her abusive husband (and father of her children). I really believed and liked the acting of the protagonists in the scenes without the supernatural. If the film would've been a drama about a single mother trying to get away and protect her children from an abusive husband and father then if would've been great. But these serious scenes clash poorly with the supernatural ones.
If you've seen the first film you will find a lot of things that just don't comply to the original's mythology. Nothing makes any sense and there is so little of the horror or suspense element that it's unbelievable. There are thankfully few jump scare shots (apparently Hollywood listened to the public which clamored "Jump scares does not equal horror!"), but without them there is nothing that will scare the viewer. The climax and resolution (which baits for a sequel, as most horror films do, the cliché that "and everything got back to normal ... or did it?") were so poorly conceived and executed that I had to bury my face in my palms out of dismay.
I'm giving the film 3 out of 10 because the acting and dialogue in the scenes not having anything to do with the supernatural were great. As stated before, I wish the film was a drama about a mother's fight for her and her sons' freedom from an abusive husband with the help of an ex-deputy. The actors had chemistry and they were doing the best they could. Let's just hope there won't be any "Sinister 3".
The Strain (2014)
Best vampire series in a while
Now, I'm not much for vampires and zombies as they've been treated in pop culture these last few years. We've had sparkling vampires (Twilight) and Olympic runner zombies (28 Days/Weeks Later ... OK so I really like those films, my point is in the way some creators of franchises are trying to reboot these monsters) and at the other extreme trying to take them back to their gruesome vile roots we've had the zombies in the comic/graphic novel "Crossed". Now we have the new "Fear The Walking Dead" series with high viewer numbers. But do they bring anything new to the table? Or is it just a survival drama series which happens to have zombies as antagonists?
Here is where "The Strain" comes in. It has a fresh approach to the vampire lore. No sparkling vampires and no Victorian gentlemen biting the necks of young maidens. Guillermo del Toro has created a very interesting vampire lore which reflects the sensibilities of modern culture. We have several popular CSI shows, we obviously are interested in the science and forensics behind solving cases even if we don't understand it. So del Toro has a very CSI-ish approach to the vampires. We have doctors doing forensic work on the vampires to try to create a cure or try to understand how to best defeat them. In the end, the core of the series seems to me to be both a triumph of science but also a triumph of humanity itself and the bonds people make during adversities, conquering them together.
Richard Sammel as Thomas Eichorst delivers a fantastic performance. Some might know him best as the officer who gets clubbed to death by "The Bear Jew" in "Inglorious Basterds". Sammel is a method actor and he portrays the villain you love to hate. The smug overconfidence and blind idealism of an SS-captain during World War II lured by supernatural powers to do their bidding, I must also mention Rupert Penry-Jones introduced in the second season as a anti-hero character. He's mostly known for the lead role of detective Joseph Chandler in the British "Whitechapel" series. He just might be the next Benedict Cumberbatch, mark my word. Besides them the cast is stellar, from the leading roles to the more "background" (plot wise) characters such as Eldritch Palmer (played by Jonathan Hyde) and Abraham Setrakian (played by David Bradley).
I never knew I'd really love and get invested in a modern vampire series, but the fresh approach towards the subject and the background history of it made me feel like there is hope for exciting vampire and zombie series in the future. Or maybe it was just Guillermo del Toro doing his magic. Nevertheless, when the season ends I'm going to have to go buy the "The Strain" books to get me through until the next season.
Apostle Peter and the Last Supper (2012)
A new Easter classic?
I was a bit skeptic about the casting for the title role. Here we have Robert Loggia who has played a drug lord in "Scarface", Feech in "The Sopranos", Sallie in "Innocent Blood" and last but not least the Mr. Eddy/Dick Laurent in David Lynch's "Lost Highway". Can he really pull off the role of the second most important figure in Christianity? The answer is a resounding yes.
It's obvious that the production ran on a very low budget. You can count on one hand how many settings there are. However what it lacks in settings and special effects it makes up with acting and a solid script. Here we have Robert Loggia playing Peter in chains in Rome and the dungeon guard Martinius starts to converse with him about Jesus and his last days. Loggia gives a great performance as an old Peter ready to die, but still finding strength and joy in telling about his last days with Jesus. As mentioned before the production seems very low budget, there are no scenes where we see Jesus flogged, going through Via Dolorosa and get crucified and resurrected. So while it may have to do with a low budget, the fact is that Peter did not witness the flogging and crucifixion so from a historical point of view it seemed fine to leave out those scenes.
The title of the film really expresses who the film is about: the apostle Peter and his view, thoughts and feelings during the last days of Jesus and his teachings. A critique against it is that there are a couple of really unnecessary scenes where the Devil tries to tempt Peter in jail. Those should have been cut since they serve no purpose whatsoever. Thankfully, they are few and very short. I have to complain as well about the poorly made CGI shots of the city.
The acting from the supporting actors is done fantastic as well, especially Martinius and his wife. All in all this film is really about the message of Peter to the Romans. It's an interesting script with solid acting that really highlights and underlines the message -- not necessarily the content itself -- of Easter in the Christian tradition. I'd watch this film instead of "The Passion" anytime and I hope it picks up a following.
The New Daughter (2009)
Missed potential
I really missed Kevin Costner. I don't know what it takes to get his career back on track (maybe a role in a Quentin Tarantino film?) but he really deserves a lot better than what he has going for him right now. That being said let's take a look at "The New Daughter". Off the bat it reminded me a bit about the best horror film of 2014 "The Babadook" in that we have a single parent struggling to raise a child with issues that may or may not be of supernatural cause. In "The New Daughter" Costner has two children, but only the pubescent girl is the center of the story while her younger brother is merely a distraction adding nothing whatsoever to the narrative, except some foreshadowing.
The problem with this film is that it seems to shoehorn in supernatural elements that are barely explained. Personally I would have cut a third of the film at least (especially the third act) and made it into a drama/suspense film about a schizophrenic young girl. In the third act at the climax she would have a breakdown and a cathartic moment where she accepts her disease and bonds with her father etc. There you have an instant hit!
I mention my own take on how the film should have been made and why I give it a 7/10 because both Kevin Costner and the kids are really great. They're not over- or underacting and the script itself aside from the supernatural element is good, especially Costner's character's role as a single father, his doubts and fears etc. Let's not forget Ivana Baquero who does a fantastic job as Costner's daughter. Her character's evolution and acting is subtle yet striking. The director really did a great job with the material he had, I just wished it was more of a psychological suspense drama and not a half-assed supernatural horror/thriller (by the way there is barely any thrill or horror to be felt watching this film).
Science Team (2014)
Chaos has a sense of humor
Do you believe in cause and effect? Because if you do, this movie will shatter your belief in it. I would describe this movie as Philip K. Dick tripping balls on LSD, peyote and ayahuasca pitching a movie idea to 80s Jim Abrahams to direct while today's David Zucker writes and produces it. I know, it sounds absurd and surreal and makes little sense, but that's how little sense this movie makes in and of itself.
There is a semblance of story in that there is a alien life form and a supposedly governmental intel agency trying to make contact with and/or eradicate these life forms depending on whether they are hostile or not. What this movie lacks on the other hand is a total disregard towards plot coherence, character development and everything you learn at Script Writing 101 college classes. Plot points are introduced and discarded, characters acting without motivation or common sense. Nothing is ever explained. This movie is an example of ontological mindfuck ruled by chaos. Everything seems to be pure randomness. Oh there is a method to the madness, but the viewer will not likely get it.
So why 6 out of 10? The movie is still fun to watch in all of its batshit insanity. You'll most likely say "if that alien turns out to be Jesus and his second coming I wouldn't be surprised at all" or something of the sort and your guess would probably just as valid as the background story the alien has. The actors try to do their best with the script they got, but it's so bad and the story so chaotic that at least they seemed to have fun shooting the movie.
The Conspiracy (2012)
Suspenseful mockumentary
Being an aficionado of conspiracy theories I was anxious to see how this mockumentary treated the subject. Was it going to be "following loose ends and circumstantial evidence, but in the end stumble upon a real conspiracy where the Devil, aliens and reptile monarchs conspire against the world?". The possibilities were endless, so the premise itself of making a documentary about conspiracy theories and theorists is right off the bat ripe for an entertaining mockumentary or a regular documentary for that matter.
That being said, I have done a lot of research into history of religion (besides taking a university course in it) to be able to spot faults in certain allegations concerning ancient traditions. However this review will not contain a "debunking", if you will, of the postulations regarding traditions presented as fact in this film. I will try to my best to review this title as objectively as possible. What I liked most was that the two main characters had different approaches towards the subject. One was very objective and rational while the other subjective and drawn towards the conspiracies they were supposed to document. This could've been the core of their relationship, sort of how Mulder and Scully in the X-Files would influence each other, but what could've been a dynamic relationship was superficially resolved.
Plot holes: tons of them even if you're not familiar with conspiracy theories. The film is set in 2011 and yet none of the characters seem to show they've done research into certain conspiracies. Now if those you interview start talking about 9/11, Kennedy assassination and others wouldn't you want, as a serious documentarist, to read all official papers, consult experts and so on before you'd start to yourself believe in a conspiracy? There are no such interviews with experts, besides a guy who's written a book on Mithras and even those statements he gives about the cult of Mithras are not what serious scholars would agree with.
Execution: I admit it got me suspenseful especially the last third of it. It made use of first person camera photography (imagine "found footage"-type, which was narratively speaking fundamental to the resolution of the plot). Other than that some shots where they would interview others and themselves were done "by the documentary book". My main problem is that the dichotomy between the two main characters and their beliefs should have been explored better and as it is it feels rushed. As for the plot holes and logical gaps (you'd really pursue a lead on an alleged secret society if you'd just google its name and get a hit on it with a dot com address?) if you can suspend your disbelief throughout the film's entirety, you may be entertained with some suspenseful scenes and a twist ending.
The Exorcist III (1990)
Underrated masterpiece
First and foremost I must say that I have watched this film more often than the original one with Max von Sydow. Why? I have asked myself that many a times. Why watch a sequel more often than the original one? I cannot explain it to myself. I absolutely adore the first Exorcist film, but there was something about The Exorcist III that kept me coming back to it over and over again.
For the first, the story is very solid. This is a direct sequel to the first Exorcist film as W. P. Blatty intended with his novel Legion (1983). Blatty is also the director of this adaptation for the screen which became The Exorcist III. I will not discuss here The Exorcist II: The Heretic since due to the story's continuity it might as well have not been made. What we have here is a work of love, love from the writer towards his characters that he has fleshed in his previous book, as well as an innermost desire to make sense of all the questions that were left unanswered in the first The Exorcist.
We have the always brilliant George C. Scott in the role of lieutenant Kinderman that is torn between new murders that resemble the profile of an old serial killer. On the other side of the spectrum we have Brad Dourif as the Gemini Killer, that does the "role of a lifetime" if I may so romantically put it. I have seen many films with Dourif and he never quite trumps his performance in this film (with the possible exception of his role in Deadwood, which closest comes on par).
So why have I, in the end seen this one more times than the first Exorcist? I have to say that it is due to W. P. Blatty's strong story as well as surprisingly coherent and well done direction, but also due to the main characters of George C. Scott and Brad Dourif and their interaction with each other. But also for Ed Flanders' role as Father Dyer who seemed to have an entertaining and charming love/hate relationship with George C. Scott's character.
The make up and horror scenes are there as well, but for me I will always regard this as one of the best sequells made for a film/book that was already perfect.
The Man from Earth (2007)
Humanistic pearl
I was genuinely moved by this film. I did not shed tears, nor was the message a revelation of some sorts due to my background in studies of different religions as well as interest in neuroscience. What moved me was both the story itself as well as the acting and direction. This film has no action, no plot, it relies on dialog and the connection between the characters. John Oldman reveals to his colleagues that he is by some unknown miracle 14000 years old. Is John playing a hoax? Is he for real? His friends and colleagues try to presume neither, but approach it critically, analytical and objective. However there is just so much objectivity one can manage before one's personal feelings get in the way.
The Man From Earth is not a film about religion, nor science, nor the possibility of a correlation between them. It does not take a stance for either. It is a film about humanity, about people. It is a true humanistic film at its core; humanistic ethics, stripped down to the bare simple truths about life right here, right now. It is not a film in the high standards of Tarkovsky, Bergman, Kurosawa to receive a top rating, yet I am still giving it a 10. The pacing was fantastic, all the characters displayed warmth and were equally sympathetic, the direction and photography while not original and extraordinary was perfect for telling this story. There are no hidden mysteries that are revealed, you won't find from it the meaning of life. But perhaps it will inspire you to find your personal meaning of life.
The Road to God Knows Where (1990)
Road to God knows where
If you expect extravagant footage look some place else. The Road To God Knows Where is shot on the Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds' 1989 American tour (promoting the Tender Prey album) and carefully documents how the band is off stage, away from the spotlights. The camera work is simple and effective and there is little live footage (after all this is a documentary of a tour, so it's natural that they included a few shots here and there). Besides the charming Bad Seeds (unfortunately you don't get to see a lot of Thomas Wyndler and Roland Wolf), we also see a little of Lydia Lunch and Anita Lane. There are several memorable scenes like when Nick dances to Madonna's "Papa Don't Preach" at sound check. If you have the DVD release you might want to see it with subtitles at first time since the sound is quite low. I've got no other complains. I enjoyed every minute of it. It's simple, it's beautiful, it's Nick Cave and The Bad Seeds at one of their finest moments in their career.