Film: Silent Hill Revelation

Director: Michael J. Bassett
Genre: Horror Thriller
Source: USA (2012)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Watch
Grade: D+

As I get deeper into my Halloween film watching of 2013, I'm finding a few things to be true. One, it's a lot harder to make a good scary movie than one would think. Two, bad scary movies can be a whole different kind of fun. And three, the "horror" genre is about as broad as movie genres get. Is a movie like Silent Hill Revelation supposed to be "scary" in the same way that The Shining or Psycho or even Friday the 13th is supposed to be? If so, it fails on all counts. Is it supposed to just be creepy, evocative of nightmares? It does a little better there, but the astronauts encountering the monolith scene from 2001 a couple of weeks ago was infinitely more nightmarish than anything on display here. Is it gore that makes a horror film? Because the CGI here, though purposefully bloody, is still way way less effective than something like The Thing. Horror is just such a big umbrella, describing films as disparate as Lugosi's Dracula, The Blob, The Ring, 28 Days Later, and Tucker and Dale Vs. Evil, that at a certain point it just stops meaning anything at all. Even with that much breadth and depth of a category, Silent Hill Revelation is not a particularly good horror movie, but it's better than my last two horror attempts, so I'll take it. It's king of the losers so far.

Anyway, I digress.

Silent Hill Revelation has enough going for it that I'm pretty disappointed it didn't turn out to be better. Notably, it's working with a pretty solid cast, though some of them are clearly slumming it here (Malcolm McDowell, this is pretty lame stuff for you, and I say that with full knowledge that you were in Just Visiting--you know, the movie where Jean Reno plays a knight who time travels to modern New York). Still: Carrie-Anne Moss? Sean Bean? Jon Snow, still knowing nothing? Enough actors with actual talent that I wonder at what point they just all felt silly. Did Carrie-Anne Moss put on her albino wig and think, "Wait, what am I doing?" Probably. 

The film has some nice visuals as well. The ash falling on the city, the disintegrating walls, the sound-activated nurses, and some nice creature effects all work in a semi-creepy way. It all feels a little too . . . CGI? Is that possible? Like someone just kept piling on the CGI to try and overcome any shortcomings. The creepy mannequin factory is nice, for example. But the spider-quin monster that emerges from it is kind of dumb. (Similarly, Pyramid head is just goofy looking, and why is his sword so enormous?) Less might have been a little more, and the amber filter on the settings gets a little old, but there is some effectively haunting stuff to look at, if you can look past the silly too-video-gamey stuff.

The film obviously was designed for 3D tricks and laughs, and it gets a little old on just a regular tv, but I won't complain too much. It is, after all, the first film of my Halloween-a-thon that kept me from getting too bored and pulling out my iPad. So that's something. Not very much, but something. And with a bar for horror this low, right now, I'll take it.

Alternate Film Title: "Worst. Carnival. Ever."

Film: Bad Kids Go to Hell

Director: Matthew Spradlin
Genre: Comedy Horror
Source: USA (2012)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Watch
Grade: D

I'll say this for Bad Kids Go to Hell. It was a better horror comedy than A Haunted House, which I watched last week. Unfortunately, that's a little like saying, "Hey, at least your cancer isn't ebola!" Yeah . . . I guess that's true.

What sounded like kind of a promising horror comedy riff on The Breakfast Club (even featuring Judd Nelso cameoing as the school headmaster), turns out to be a lot more . . . dull than that, as a needlessly complicated plot and a stupid "Haunted Indian" storyline suck all the interest out of this film. It doesn't help that all of the actors are a) terrible, and b) look to be around 30 years old. It also doesn't help that the "videos and flashbacks" to prior events are used so clunkily. And that's not even a word. And it really doesn't help that the ultimate reveals are so lame. 

Anyway, that's probably all that needs to be said. It could be worse, but it should have been a lot better. After shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer handled the idea really effectively a decade ago, "teens figure out an evil threat" has to actually be a lot more clever than this to be effective.

Alternate Film Title: "Even Emilio Estevez's Agent Must Have Passed on This, And That's Saying Something"

Film: Don Jon

Director: Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Genre: Comedy/ Drama
Source: USA (2013)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Glynn Place Stadium Cinema
Grade: B-

Don Jon has a lot to say about the way both men and women are taught to view women as objects and princesses, and how both of those roles invite selfishness into relationships. It works for the most part, though writer/director/star Gordon-Levitt imbues these characters with two parts depth and three parts caricature. Still, he and Scarlett Johansson are watchable (even as you sort of hate them) as Jersey Shore pretty boys and girls who are so obsessed with themselves they don't understand what being in a relationship truly means. 

Gordon-Levitt gets that across by showing again and again showing us the routines of Jon's life and how his idea of getting serious with Barbara is just fitting her into those routines, even if it means lying or rolling his eyes while he does it. For Barbara it means transforming Jon into the Ken-doll/rom-com star she's always dreamed of. Neither of them see how relationships require give and take, sharing, and giving yourself over willingly to another person. That's true intimacy, the film suggests, and porn and romantic comedies are just false depictions of what can only be experienced on an individual level as partners learn how to be selfless. It's sort of a "duh" premise for anyone who has actually had a satisfying relationship, but Gordon-Levitt (and Tony Danza and the rest of the cast) are just so fun to watch that I'll forgive the film it's simplicity.

It doesn't do it all right, but no first-time director does. Gordon-Levitt has fun that works (I loved Jon's confessional visits as he seeks to "score" a lower penance number) and fun that doesn't (good golly, Joseph, sometimes you can put down the handheld cam and just let a shot settle for a moment), but overall it works. There are a lot of R-rated porn clips (nothing below the waist, but lots of porny faces/actions) for the squeamish, but overall the message is really about affirming healthy relationships and rejecting unhealthy obsessions. It's only when Jon starts to break up his routine and allow real space for other people that he can begin to grow.

I'm interested to see what else Gordon-Levitt does, not because this was a great film, but because it indicates to me a filmmaker who wants to develop and share his voice. And that's exciting to watch.

Alternate Film Title: "Oh, Hey, Julianne Moore Is In This Too, I Guess"

Film: A Haunted House

Director: Michael tiddes
Genre: Comedy (Supposedly) Horror
Source: USA (2013)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Watch
Grade: F

Well, in my hope of watching Halloween movies all through October (since I'm not a gory movie fan, but I do like horror movies) I decided to watch with a little horror comedy. 

At least that was the intention. This parody movie doesn't adequately fit either category, since it's neither scary nor funny.

Like, at all.

At a certain point, finishing this film became an act of willpower, because I was so not enjoying it, but kept holding out hope it would get funnier, since there are a few people in it that have made me laugh in the past.

I guess everybody needs a paycheck. Because this is terrible.

Alternate Film Title: "86 Minutes You Will Never Get Back"

Film: Rush

Director: Ron Howard
Genre: Drama
Source: USA (2013)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Glynn Place Stadium Cinema
Grade: A-

I know little to nothing about F1, and Ron Howard is really hit and miss to me (Loved: A Beautiful Mind, Apollo 13, Willow. But on the other hand: The Da Vinci Code, The Dilemma, EdTV) so I was prepared for moderate interest in Rush, but I wasn't prepared to enjoy it as much as I did. Howard takes on the (apparently) famous Hunt/Lauda rivalry of the 70s, and though a few choices don't work (I'm not sure we need the Niki Lauda book-ended narration, and at times we seem to be moving so quickly through the story we skip major events), overall I was really pleasantly surprised. Howard has brought F1 to life in some powerful ways here, and overall the film gives the story stakes that even novice F1 fans can sink their teeth into.

Step one: The sound. When my wife and I sat down in the theater, she leaned over and said she thought the sound was turned way up, and it is, but that single choice by the theater owner might have been the best choice in making this film immersive. This is a film not just about the speed of the cars, but about the throb and rumble of the engine. They overwhelm us, and they should, because they are the aural representation of strength and power.

It's that strength and power--that sense of life and mastery over it--that Hunt and Lauda both seem to tap into in their own ways, and Chris Hemmsworth and Daniel Bruhl both find that need to race in different ways. Hemmsworth is cocky, handsome, a walking talking James Bond in real life. Lauda is (as he is accused of being) ratlike, but also persistent, indomitable, and sharp. They are a great balance to one another, both as characters and as actors, and its them that make the film work.

Of course, the effects work here is top notch, as Howard's low cameras really invite us to get to a car's eye view of the track and of the driver, and they are also really effective in conveying speed. But I was impressed with just how much "action" Howard was willing to cut to make this the story of two men, not just of two racing styles. Whole races are covered in a quick audio clip and intertitle, and its effective choice in making the races that we do see count.

Really, I just didn't expect to enjoy myself quite so much. I hope the film continues to find an audience, both in the US and abroad, because it's Howard's best film in quite some time. I feel like he is dabbling with some new styles here--not just big Hollywood "please everybody" work, but really taking some interesting risks. I like to see that side of him.

Alternate Film Title: "Nascar Looks Forever Lame Now"

Film: Prisoners

Director: Denis Villeneuve
Genre: Drama
Source: USA (2013)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Island Cinema
Grade: C

Despite a solid cast (and particularly nice turns from Jake Gyllenhaal and Terrence Howard, and a particularly scenery chewing performance from Hugh Jackman) and several tense scenes, at a certain point--well before the third act takes an eye-rolling turn towards the "Let's Tie It All Up with a Bow" tendencies of big studio films--Prisoners is just not as smart as it thinks it is. Whether that's an obvious clue that the audience will almost certainly identify well before Gyllenhaal's Detective Loki does, or whether that's the believability of Hugh Jackman's choices in the film, or any number of little details that add up to less than they should, the film just doesn't come together for me. I mean, Loki literally falls into a major plot point, and that kind of sloppiness just doesn't go very far.

It's not all bad. It's beautifully shot (Roger Deakins, you magnificent bastard, you've done it again) and contains a lot of nice moments.The whole film feels blue and cold, and that's the emotional state of characters, not just the physical, being reflected, so it works. And I did like a lot of the performances: Howard doesn't have enough to do, but what he does he does well. And the film even ends with a strong bit of editing, sound work, and final cut that are really effective in leaving an impression.

In the end, however, the film and the director think all its ideas are good, when really only about 60% of them are. The film meanders a bit too much, and its two and a half hour running time feel really drawn out for a film that is supposed to be about tension and a ticking clock. It feels like the film is trying so hard to be a David Fincher film that it loses its way. There is real tension, and there is real pathos, but after a while it just gets to be a little too much. It loses touch with reality and spends too much time in movie fantasy land to work. 

Alternate Film Title: "Snakes in a Chest! But Why?"

Film: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Director: Stanley Kubrick
Genre: Drama/ Sci-fi
Source: USA (1968)
Rating: G
Location/Format: Blu-ray
Grade: A

It's been too long since I've recorded a movie review--in part because I've been busy, yes, but mostly because I feel overwhelmed approaching the monumental task of writing about Kubrick's 1968 masterpiece 2001. How do I say anything meaningful about a film that literally left me breathless and overwhelmed and lost and moved and confused and deep, deep in thought? It is a film that to me is everything everyone said it was, and still somehow more.

First off, I appreciate that the Filmspotting podcast's recent Sacred Cow discussion of the film which prompted me to finally go watch it. I waited to listen to the podcast until after I had seen the film so that I could process it a little on my own, but their insights and conversation were really meaningful, even though I don't see the whole film in the same light they did.

Without question the film is a masterclass on the marriage of sound and image. As many critics have noted, there is little dialogue, but to call it a "near silent movie" is in no way accurate. Kubrick uses music as a narrative device, providing meaning to what we see before us, making it evocative and emotional and erudite. His use of Strauss's "Blue Danube" or the famous "Also Sprach Zarathustra" are epic and profound, but two scenes in particular stood out for their sound. First, the encounter of the Monolith by the astronauts on the surface of the moon, when the shrieking chorus both terrifies and overwhelms us as viewers. Few other films have filled me with as much dread, as much foreboding, as this scene. As the astronauts descend the ramp (and let me note that the effects are so legitimate looking throughout the film that it is incredible to realize that this was filmed in an era so far before computer effects and before man had even actually been to the moon) one cannot help but anticipate a meeting with a higher power, a God-like figure too great for man to comprehend.

Because I have a hard time not reading this film (despite Filmspotting's insistence on Kubrick's misanthropy and pessimism) as about encounters with the divine. The Monolith transforms those who come in contact with it, as Moses was transfigured before God on the mountain, both for better and for worse. I almost see the Monolith not just as an artifact from an ancient and more advanced race of beings, but as an angel of metamorphosis. Some can handle the transformation (though I like the reading of the end of the film as the end of one race and the birth of something new, I also like reading it as Dave's rebirth and new beginning. Does it kill him or elevate him?) and some cannot. Some pervert the elevated status, as the apes, for example, develop tools, and then use them to destroy. It's a movie so filled with possible interpretations that it's silly to try and harmonize them all, and maybe this meaning for me wouldn't hold up under a second viewing, but I definitely saw in this film both the terror and the awe with which the divine is often described in literature the world over. I like that, and though the music in the moon sequence may have terrified, it also reinforced the wonder of the interstellar object.

The second sequence that stood out (and this is probably no surprise) is the life and death of HAL 9000. Never has a machine produced such an emotional response from me--not even Arnie's dying "thumbs up" in Terminator 2. HAL is, fascinatingly, the one character in the film who expresses the most emotion, and so perhaps it is fitting that his loss is far more painful than, say, Dave's death in the still-semi-perplexing sequence at the end of the film. I did not anticipate the pain of hearing him plead for his life, of losing his brain function, of ultimately singing, tragically "Daisy Bell" as he lost all sense of himself. It is a powerful moment, in part because the action here is so frantic compared to the slow pace of the rest of the film. Here we are invited to question madness and paranoia, yes, but also repentance and forgiveness and understanding. The entire sequence on Discovery One is incredible from a technical and storytelling perspective, and it's certainly the most narratively coherent section of the film, but it also provides an emotional heart to the film as well. Fascinating.

There is so much more to say here. The beauty of Kubrick's composition. The structure and the epic scale. The minutia and mundanity with which Kubrick paints a reasonable future (based on 1960s understandings). The technical expertise of making characters run in enormous hamster wheels or walk on the ceiling. The awe. The power. The self-reflection caused. It really is a masterpiece, and one I will have to make a note to rewatch every few years, since I think it's interpretively rich enough that each viewing could bring new analysis, ideas, or insights. I'm glad my first viewing was at least on a 52" screen, and I hope and hope and hope that I will have an opportunity to see it projected full size on a big screen in my lifetime. 

I loved it.