I've been anticipating this one since I first saw the trailer late last summer, but I was a little unsure what to think about it. The trailers almost made it look like a horror film, but this film is definitely something different. Andrew, Matt, and Steve discover a hole in the ground outside of a party one night. They wind up with super powers--able to move things with their mind and even fly. Of course, as Uncle Ben said it best: "With great power comes great responsibility"--this movie is kind of the visual truth of that statement.
First time director Josh Trank does a great job with the found footage concept, varying up the way shots are composed and actually not making it completely shaky the entire time. There's even a legitimate reason for the filming of everything: Andrew decides to document his life, with his overly abusive alcoholic father and sickly mother. I also dug that we get shots from another character's camera, surveillance footage, electronic devices...like I said, extremely varied. There's a scene where the characters truly discover the highlight of their powers (flight), and the camera comes with them into the clouds. It's a great moment. How they made it look convincing, I'll never know. The film was made on a reported $12 million dollar budget, which I find most impressive. There are some very obvious CG effects, but for the most part, I found them to be more believable than not. The three lead actors pull off their roles, with each of them coming off as likeable, realistic characters. I truly bought the bond between all three of them, and was grateful for the amount of character development given, especially for such a short film. Also, the film gets dark. Very dark. But it all makes sense within the frame of the narrative, and the turn of events that occurs is warranted.
And now, to my issues. First, the length. This is a superhero origin story told in less than 90 minutes. I feel like some scenes could have gone on a bit longer. I think that the pacing of the first half is perfect, but after a certain plot development midway through, it sort of rushes to the ending. The film could've used a little breathing room, so it wouldn't have felt as rushed. There are also a few scenes where the acting feels a little forced and the dialogue a little stilted, but that's to be expected in a film with no-name actors.
This is an interesting little film. A bright spot in the doldrums of the early months of the year, the dumping ground for studios. I liked this movie a lot, and definitely think it's worth a viewing.
Final Rating: 7/10
Monday, February 6, 2012
Sunday, February 5, 2012
REVIEW: The Woman in Black (2012)
Daniel Radcliffe's first post-Harry Potter film is here, and I'm glad to say that it is mostly a success. Radcliffe stars as Arthur Kipps, a young lawyer who is sent to take care of the affairs of deceased Alice Drablow at the estate of Eel Marsh. When he arrives, he finds out about the spectral woman in black, who is said to bring about the death of a child whenever she is seen.
This type of ghost story is all about the atmosphere, which is oozing from every frame. Director James Watkins lays it on thick, with tons of fog, rain, and dread from the cinematography department, along with an excellent sound effects team. While the movie employs a few of the cheap jump scares typical of the genre (along with a punctuation in the soundtrack!), the horror is mostly subtle. I would compare the scares in this film to the first half of Insidious (before it got a little ridiculous in the climax). Daniel Radcliffe is perfect for this type of role, which is essentially him reacting to things that aren't there, something he's been doing for the last ten years. I really think he might be able to outgrow this Harry Potter thing--he definitely has the acting chops to do it.
I do have a problem with the pacing of the film, which doesn't flow as well as it should, along with a glaring plot hole I haven't gotten over yet. I will certainly give props to the film's marketing team; the ending of the film isn't even hinted at in the trailers, something that tends to happen for pretty much every movie these days. In fact, what I guessed would be the climax actually occurs fairly early on in the film.
See this movie. It's a decent little ghost story with a dark ending. There's not a whole lot to it in terms of story (which is odd, since it's based on a novel by Susan Hill), but the atmosphere and scares are pitch perfect.
Final Rating: 7/10
This type of ghost story is all about the atmosphere, which is oozing from every frame. Director James Watkins lays it on thick, with tons of fog, rain, and dread from the cinematography department, along with an excellent sound effects team. While the movie employs a few of the cheap jump scares typical of the genre (along with a punctuation in the soundtrack!), the horror is mostly subtle. I would compare the scares in this film to the first half of Insidious (before it got a little ridiculous in the climax). Daniel Radcliffe is perfect for this type of role, which is essentially him reacting to things that aren't there, something he's been doing for the last ten years. I really think he might be able to outgrow this Harry Potter thing--he definitely has the acting chops to do it.
I do have a problem with the pacing of the film, which doesn't flow as well as it should, along with a glaring plot hole I haven't gotten over yet. I will certainly give props to the film's marketing team; the ending of the film isn't even hinted at in the trailers, something that tends to happen for pretty much every movie these days. In fact, what I guessed would be the climax actually occurs fairly early on in the film.
See this movie. It's a decent little ghost story with a dark ending. There's not a whole lot to it in terms of story (which is odd, since it's based on a novel by Susan Hill), but the atmosphere and scares are pitch perfect.
Final Rating: 7/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)