Reviews written by registered user
|562 reviews in total|
Krypton is dying and Jor-El makes the brave decision to save his
newborn son, Kal-El, by sending him off into the stars in the hopes of
preserving their race. The newborn lands on Earth and as he grows
older, is told to keep his powers a secret, for if the world found out,
they would reject him. He travels the world looking for answers as to
who he is and where he came from. He finds those answers when General
Zod arrives, another survivor from the planet Krypton. He has the same
goal as Jorl-El did, preserving the race...even if it means destroying
Man of Steel is Warner Brother's attempt at getting another franchise off the ground. Now that Harry Potter and Batman are done, they have nothing. so they go to the one man from their past who they know can resurrect a dead franchise: Christopher Nolan. With Nolan as the Producer, veteran comic scribe David S. Goyer behind the screenplay and the visual comic book flair eye behind the camera, Zack Snyder, it looked like WB had put all their eggs in one basket. For the most part, it paid off.
Man of Steel has it's fair share of problems, I walked away from it with the same feeling I had with The Dark Knight Rises (which was I really enjoyed it, but the problems it has were very apparent). This is a new take on the traditional superhero. This time, Nolan brings in his dark and brooding style to this franchise. Some people dislike this new look and feel, Superman hardly smiles, the world does not love him and the film is dead serious. There are little to no moments of humour. Nolan is taking a...wait, THE, definition of a Superhero and planting him into a real word realm, much like he did with Batman. While some people will be turned off by this, I actually found it kind of refreshing. Yes, we have another superhero who grapples with issues, but these are issues that he should be struggling with. Who is he, where does he come from, what is his purpose. Nolan and Snyder explore this notion and they do it well.
The narrative of the film is told in two segments, the present timeline which is Kent looking for answers to his past and the other timeline are flashbacks to pivotal moments in his life growing up. The flashback sequences feel like segments from Malick's Tree of Life, which fits the Kansas setting perfectly. Costner and Lane play Superman's Earth parents. Costner feels the need to hide Kurt's powers, he fears the world is not ready for someone like him, but he's Superman after all. So that need to save people, no matter what is there. Lane is given the short end of the stick here and is given very little to do.
Superman's other parents are played by Russel Crowe and Ayelet Zurer. We are introduced to them in an overly long prologue sequence set on Krypton. It feels like a scene that could have been told in ten minutes, instead it feels like twenty. The look and feel of Krypton is lackluster in the sense that we get an Avatar/Matrix hybrid of sorts with flying winged monsters and test tube babies. So the film kind of starts off on a misstep, but once we get to Earth, the film finds its footing. Goyer finds a way to keep Russel around much longer than he needs to be. Although Crowe does bring a bit of charisma to a nothing role.
Things get a little harry for Superman when a being who calls himself General Zod arrives. From that moment on the film feels less like a Superman film and more like an Alien Invasion movie and I feel like that was their intention. There is more destruction in this film than in last years Avengers or any of the Transformers movies. The last hour or so is relentless action and destruction. To the point where I didn't know if I could take it anymore. You can only throw a guy through several buildings so many times before it gets tiresome. Snyder is a visual director and he manages to keep the action going with some beautiful shots. These characters move at incredible speeds, so the fight sequences are CGI heavy. Usually when a film has to animate a human, it looks fake, here they seem to pull it off nicely.
General Zod is played by Michael Shannon. He plays up the bad guy role well enough for me to give a pass to. We know his intentions, we know he is a threat and Shannon seems to be having some fun with the role, despite the seriousness of the tone. He goes over the top and it works. Cavill is great as Superman, he has the looks, the build and the charisma. He's just never really given that one moment that I think he needed to really "sell" that Superman role. The one thing he seems to do different (other than brooding) is scream a lot. Unfortunately one of the biggest problems with the film is the chemistry between Adams and Cavill. Lane and Superman seem to have none of it and their moment at the end felt false. Although she does a much better job than the train wreck that was Bosworth.
Man of Steel is a great Superhero movie. It follows in the steps of Nolan's Batman series more than what Marvel is doing with their characters. I urge people not to expect that Superman from the past, goes he's gone. This new one is here to stay.
Kirk is given the task of tracking down John Harrison, the man
responsible for the death of hundreds of Starfleet Commanders, but upon
capturing him, the crew of the enterprise learns of more sinister evils
lurking in the darkness.
The film starts off Kirk disobeying direct orders from Starfleet in order to save the life of a crew member. The result of this action has him demoted from captain, yet this subplot only lasts 5 minutes as he is thrust back into the role after a devastating hit from the new villain, played by Benedict Cumberbatch. So the film starts off pretty shaky, having something important happen that ultimate goes nowhere for the story. Once Cumberbatch comes on the screen, the film becomes stronger and more focused.
This new Star Trek film dances around revenge, sacrifice and friendship. The relationship between Spock and Kirk is stronger, almost a complete 180 from what we saw in the original film. Despite this new strong friendship, Spock still has trouble conveying emotions and thinks more logically than emotionally. This film tries to be bigger and pose a more dangerous threat to our crew than the original, as most sequels do, but in order for that to happen, a lot of the characters are given the short straw. Zoe Saldana, John Cho and Anton Yelchin get the worst of it.
Saldana is belittled to a girlfriend role, Cho only drives the ship and Yelchin is thrown into the back and literally does nothing. Pegg, Quinto and Pine take the front roles and of course Cumberbatch steals the show whenever he's on the screen. I can't help be feel a tad disappointed that most of the crew is given little to do, whereas everyone in the original had a moment to shine.
Into Darkness is a good entertaining film, that falls a tad bit short of its predecessor. It's still a great film, but there are too many telegraphed scenes that leave the emotion empty because you know where they writers are going to go with it. Big reveals are not shocking and the predictable ending leaves a bad taste in my mouth. They had a chance to throw a big curveball and make us salivate for the next film, but instead we are treated with the "Spielberg" ending, something that I think Abrams is becoming more and more guilty of.
Those detractors are not enough to make the film a disappointment. It is highly enjoyable popcorn flair. Those worried about lens flare? He tones it down this time!!! YAY!!!!
So the reason Kubrick made 'The Shining' was to prove to us that he had
faked the entire moon landing video.
No wait, it's actually about the genocide of the Native American Indians...
No, I'm wrong again, it's all about the Holocaust.
These are just a few of the many theories that Room 237 proposes. This documentary, which never shows the faces of those talking, is an interesting piece that seems to offer more than it can deliver. The idea of hidden meanings in film, conspiracies and real intentions are what dragged me into this feature. Those elements will drag me into anything really. Throw on top of that Stanley Kubrick, a methodical dictator of a director (to some) and you'll believe that there truly must be some other motive behind the picture.
That is...until you see Room 237 and come to understand that what Kubrick was really doing, was having fun with the horror tropes we see in so many films. There are about 6 people in Room 237 each with their own theories on what 'The Shining' really means and the film is broken into 9 parts. So it does get a bit lengthy clocking in at almost 2 hours. I can pinpoint the moment I knew that this film was trouble.
The one theory that made me laugh out loud and realize that the grasping at straws was beyond what I could imagine is when we are given a frame by frame explanation of what a particular scene really means. The scene? Jack is introduced to the hotel owner, Ullman. The guy speaking, whose name I cannot remember because they only appear once and we never see their face, goes on to explain how the film is really about sexuality, the fear and obsession of it.So when Ullman stands up and walks around the desk to shake hands with Jack, as soon as their hands meet, the picture pauses. He is standing in front of his desk and a stack of papers in a tray is oddly placed on the desk to make it appear that Ullman has a massive erection. Thus the film is about sexuality.
Far fetched? Indeed.
In what I hoped would be some deep analysis of a film from one of the greatest directors of our time, I instead got a bunch of crackpots having too much time on their hands. I will say that I did think one or two were interesting. At one point the film is played forward and backwards at the same time, superimposed over each other. As it was "meant" to be seen. Thus we get images off blood rushing from the elevator while we are on a closeup of Jack's face. We see the two girls for the first time, while they hover over Wendy. More and more, interesting to see, a lot of it is still left to the imagination.
I don't know why people ignore continuity mistakes and think they mean something when they don't, but that is the majority of this film. Before the internet, when everyone believed in coincidence, none of this would have gotten to my attention. Did the film make me want to see The Shining again? Not really, it made me want to give 2001: A Space Odyssey another shot.
Weird? Maybe 2001 is a companion piece to "The Shining", wait...something already has that theory in Room 237.
Nick Carraway moves next to an eccentric millionaire, Mr. Jay Gatsby,
who throws lavish parties every single night. One night he receives an
invitation to the party, the only invitation Gatsby has ever given to
anyone to attend his gathering. Who is this Mr. Gatsby, why does he
throw lavish parties every night and what are his real intentions?
I read the book in preparation for this film, something I rarely do. I was left underwhelmed by the book and overexposed by the film. While the Baz Luhrmann does stay faithful to the words on the page, the overall tone and feel of the picture seems to be in the wrong place. When the truth about the book is about the falseness of these rich people and their empty lives while using the pedestal of a love story to get through it, Luhrmann seems more interested, or maybe the studio was, at making the love story front and centre, almost ignoring the more interesting aspects of the tale. What is left is an hollow film, that is fancy for the eyes and not much more.
I chose to see the in 2D and judging by what I saw, I don't think I would have missed the confetti and floating typewriter words coming at me very much. Luhrmann's films always look like the prettiest girl at the ball. Gatsby is probably the prettiest of them all and with good reason too. Those parties Gatsby throws is wonderful, full of energy, vibrant colours and dance numbers. It's at one of these parties that we are introduced to Gatsby, in one of the most over the top and perfect character introductions I've seen on film. DiCaprio captures the essence of Gatsby, a lonely insecure man who hides behind his riches and puts on this mysterious front. He looks the part, acts the part and is one of the highlights of the picture. No one else seems to be on the same page as him though.
Joel Edgerton is Tom Buchanan, a brutish fellow who is having an affair. Edgerton chomps on his cigars, kisses his woman and loves to poke the fire when it is hot. His wife, Daisy, played by the timid as a mouse Carey Mulligan is the picturesque woman that Gatsby is pining for. She doesn't seem to have a real identity. She is torn between two men, but nothing else of her character wants to come though. Her cousin, Nick Carraway is played by Peter Parker himself, Tobey Maguire. Much like the book, he is give nothing to do but walk around in the background with a drink in his hand. Maguire takes this thankless role and adds no flare, no emotion, no sense of tragedy to it. Aside from Pleasantville, I've yet to see a good Tobey Maguire performance.
The story is a tragic one and even if Luhrmann didn't want to focus on the rich and famous and just centre on this love story, he should have added more stakes into it. Character with little to no screen time early on in the film, play major roles later on. It's an odd balance, made even odder by the Luhrmann flare he puts in it. The film feels like Moulin Rouge, with the over exaggerated expressions and acting from the background characters. The choice of modern music in an old time era, Luhrmann even uses the same plot device with a man telling the story at a typewriter.
But like I said, the film look gorgeous, sounds great and is very eccentric, much like the characters that inhabit this story. This is probably the closest adaptation of The Great Gatsby we'll get, even if it didn't get it right.
After a war with an alien species, Earth has been left in shambles. Two
humans stay behind to help repair drones associated with the extraction
of Earth's remaining resources. After some unusual circumstances, one
of the team members begins to question his mission and purpose.
The ads for this movie reveal nothing, yet reveal everything at the same time. It's an odd feeling going into this film knowing nothing about it, but knowing where most of the story will go. Near the end of the film you'll get this strange feeling that you've seen this all before. Well, you have. While Oblivion tends to borrow a lot of elements from better sci/fi films, it's enjoyable enough to keep your attention till the last scene. Oblivion is basically if 2001: A Space Odyssey and Moon had a Hollywoodized love child, which is both a positive and negative.
Tom Cruise plays the hero of this story, Jack Harper. A man given the task of repairing drones that are to protect these vessels that are extracting Earth's water supply. We are told the humans had to leave Earth and are on one of Jupiter's moons. Both Cruise and Andrea Riseborough who plays his female counterpart Victoria have two weeks left of their mission before they can return to the TET. The drones are protecting the vessels from the alien species that attacked Earth. Now the story takes a few twists and turns which will have some people glued to the screen and others scratching their heads. By the end of the film all is revealed and cleared up, I for one appreciated the slow revelations of what is truth and what is fiction.
Both Morgan Freeman and Olga Kurylenko show up in the film, I don't wish to reveal their characters or purpose because the mystery is integral to the story, even if it's obvious from the get go. Freeman unfortunately is given very little to do and shows up in only 3 scenes. Kurylenko is given more, but I still wanted more of an emotional draw from her performance. Both Cruise and Riseborough do well in their respective roles. Cruise's character is more concerned with exploration and knowledge, while Riseborough is more by the book and stick to the mission. Both characters are at opposite ends of the same mission. Cruise does well here, as usual. He always gives 100 percent in his roles, which I admire. He manages to balances both the emotional weight and the action needed for this film.
Joseph Kosinski is the director, who also gave us the visually stunning Tron: Legacy. Oblivion seems to be giving him more to work with from a story stand point, but the visuals are what will draw you in. Cruise is flying around a destroyed Earth with only little remnants of our history. The sequences of him in his ship are great and Kosinski knows how to handle his action sequences. The sleek design of the ship and use of white everywhere might make you think that Apple is in control in the future, but it's obvious the influences in this film are mainly Kubricks 2001 and the Rockwell mind bender Moon.
Oblivion is a decent sci/fi film that makes you ask some questions, while being throughly entertained. While it's not as deep as either of the above mentioned films and feels more Hollwood, it's good enough to recommend.
A brilliant thief is caught an thrown in prison for 8 years after
stealing 10 million dollars. After he is released he tries to reconcile
with his daughter, but she winds up being kidnapped by one of his
former partners wanting his cut of the 10 million they stole 8 years
Another year, another Nic Cage film that doesn't set the box office on fire and very few people even know about it. Stolen is a very generic plot which features a good hearted bad guy who has to save his daughter in a race against the clock. The last time Nic Cage and director Simon West teamed up was the thrilling and too awesome Con Air. I love that film. West has done some great action films since, earlier this year he did The Expendables 2, which was miles above the original. Unfortunately, Stolen seems to be on autopilot from everyone involved.
Nic Cage, an actor I will always give the benefit of the doubt (although as of late I'm starting to wonder why) doesn't seem to care about the project and the entire film seems like another effort to knock off some of his tax problems. Simon West does nothing to make the film thrilling. We open with a bank heist, which then turns into a chase sequence. This is surprisingly the most action the film has, despite Cage constantly being on the run to save his daughter.
The bad guy is played by Josh Lucas, who seems to be one crazy mofo. The character is straight up looney tunes with missing fingers and a missing leg. Very cartoonish villain and Lucas plays it up. I do wish he went a bit more tongue in cheek, but as it stands he was the best thing about this film.
The rest of the supporting cast includes Malin Akerman, who does nothing but show up when the script needs her to. Danny Huston, the determined FBI agent who's been after Cage for years. He claims to admire Cage and catching him is one of the highlights of his life, but the bad/good guy respect each other relationship is pretty soft and should have had more substance. M.C. Gainey is another member of the team, he has two short scenes and does well enough with the little material he is given.
Stolen is a generic by the numbers thriller which lacks much of what makes those films fun. With little to no attachment to the characters, you'll not really care if he finds his daughter or not. Taken made the kidnapped daughter genre popular and Stolen does nothing to try to elevate the material, or even make it fun. Even looking past the preposterous scenes in this film, for example why wouldn't the bank of changed their alarm system after they were robbed 8 years ago, or how he knows how to reprogram a brand new smart phone after 8 years in prison. I have trouble with the phone I've had for 3 years. Issues like those aside (small I know, but they stood out) the film does the very basic of entertaining you.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
5 friends go up to a cabin in the woods to help one of them detox from
some drugs. Going cold turkey proves to be more difficult when the
uncover an ancient book of the dead, which is bound in human flesh and
inked in human blood. When one reads from the pages, it unleashes an
evil so grotesque and profound that nothing can stop it. Of course,
someone reads from it....
Let me tell you where this review is coming from. I LOVE the original to death, it's my favourite horror film of all time. I've seen the red band trailer and I read the script, so I knew exactly what was going to happen. Did that hinder my enjoyment of the film? A bit, knowing some twists in the narrative makes the film lose some freshness, but I don't think the decision to stay true to the script was not all that great a choice. The film is a flawed attempt from people who love the source material. I can still give this remake a passing grade.
Where the film excels is the most obvious point I or anyone else will make in their reviews. The practical effects, mainly the gore. With only a few noticeable scenes in CGI blood, this film decides to use the gore that most horror fans are use to. It looks real, feels real and is actually refreshing to see. People were sad about the news of an Evil Dead remake until the RedBand trailer came out and they saw the carnage on screen. Most of the 'shocking' gore bits are in the trailer (tongue slice, face saw, arm cut, etc) So I don't think there will be a lot of surprises here, but they excel at presenting it in such an over the top, yet serious fashion.
The film looks great with some nice camera movements that add to the unsettling atmosphere. Once the crap hits the fan, it's a no holds barred blood fest. This remake plays it straight, offering little to no camp that can be found in the original series. There are obvious winks and nods to the original, involving chainsaws, hands and tweaked famous lines, but for the most part this entry tries to separate itself from the original. This is where it succeeds and fails in my opinion.
The reason they are there is a nice little way of keeping them there. One character has to detox from drugs, so obviously she will be the first one who senses something is wrong here but no one will believe her cause she's coming down from the drugs. This is the little bit of character background they try to squeeze in. This film is not concerned so much with character backstories, yet they try to present some to the audience. It makes for an odd and slow build up for the carnage. When it hits, we don't care about any of them either. I even forgot that the girlfriend was there because she disappears for most of the first act only to show up for her own gruesome scene.
The film is not scary at all. I was terrified of the original, this one didn't even have me jump at those cheap jump scares. I was scared of the cellar in Raimi's version. Here I think it is just gross. That's the main theme the film wants to get across it seems. It wants to gross you out, not terrify you, not make you smile, not make you care about anyone, just make you squirm at the blood. I have to give the film props for at least trying to separate itself from the original by making the story a bit of its own thing. Whether or not this works is another story. The one giant misstep, in my opinion, is when they try to make the evil and actual thing. The book reads that HE is coming, HE wants your soul, etc. The evil should not be characterized by a single demonic entity. I always envisioned the evil dead as multiple dead scary things. This is one direction that the film takes to separate itself, it fails in that aspect.
Finally, the climax of the film. There is one scene just before the climax, I have to add, which is mind boggling dumb. I was rolling my eyes reading the script and had hopes they would change it, they don't. Never before has the evil been so easily defeated and never more have I been so disappointed at a story choice. After that we get a bit of a character shift and the climax is a bloody mess. Again, this chase sequence feels less Evil Dead and more Friday the 13th stalker-ish. While it is thrilling to watch and ending with a bang, it feels out of place.
This Evil Dead is gruesome, but some fun is to be had. A flawed remake that could have been so much worse. For those interested, there is a little after the credits bit that, even though feels half-assed, is a nice fan service moment.
A magician finds himself transported to the magical land of Oz, where
witches, flying monkeys and yellow brick roads exist. He is mistaken
for the saviour of Oz and must decide whether or not to stay and be
king, or leave and find his way home.
I love Sam Raimi, the man and his invented work with a camera are what made me want to get into filmmaking in the first place. So to see him handling big projects like this (and Spiderman) was a joy for me to see. Oz the Great & Powerful is a CGI heavy film that demands a creative eye behind the lens. After his work on big budget films like Spiderman, it seemed like an easy choice for Raimi to be the one behind Oz and for the most part, it works. The films shortcomings keep it from being really magical and memorable, like the original from 39, but Oz has enough whimsy to keep the kids entertained and the adults smiling.
The land of Oz is indeed magical, with vibrant colours around every corner, memorable spots like the poppy fields and the dark forest for us older viewers, but even in saying all that I can't help but feel how fake it all is. This film suffers from the same troubles that plagued Burton's Alice in Wonderland, the visuals, although great for the story, add no sense of realism to the image. I hate overly used CGI in films to the point of noticing the awkward placement of actors in front of the green screen. The first major offender of this is Star Wars: Attack of the Clones, none of the actors made me believe they were in the settings they were. Both Wonderland and Oz have this same feeling.
While I'm getting the negatives out of the way, I must say that what everyone is saying about Mila Kunis is true, she was miscast in this role. I think she was chosen more for her beauty and star power than her acting abilities, which is sad cause it looks like she really is trying here. The story for her character here is a sad one and the second half I think suffers a bit because the threat from her is not really present. I don't really know why I'm tip-toeing around the issue because those who know The Wizard of Oz, know that Dorothy kills one witch with her house and the other with water, leaving Glinda the good witch in a bubble as the saviour. Seeing the Kunis character go in the direction she does didn't really effect me as much as I wanted it to. Consider that the failure of the script more so than the actors. Not enough time is really given to her for her transformation to affect the viewer.
The film opens in black & white and and the transformation to colour had a smile on my face. Despite the "fakeness" of some of the scenes (not all) Raimi does a decent job of not letting the effects overpower the film. Raimi steers the film in the right direction, but it is James Franco's shoulders it has to rest on. He is the type of actor that comes off as not really caring. It works in some films like Pineapple Express and he does manage to turn in some great performances, look at 127 days or Freaks & Geeks for that. Unfortunately I don't know if he has enough charisma and power to command a film like this. At times it looked like he was in the role, other times it felt like he couldn't care. Maybe it's his acting style, I can't really put my finger on it, but clearly Raimi sees something in him because he has worked with him previously on the Spiderman films.
Where the acting does work, marvellously and in every scene is Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams. Two polar opposites that look like they actually enjoy the characters and the movie they are in. They elevate the material a bit to make the drama more tangible. Whereas without them I think the film would have fallen more flat. The drama and character choices didn't really bring me into the story. The film didn't feel like it took chances, or tried to have complex situations for the characters. It had mapped out beats, hit them and marched on.
It was nice seeing some nice Raimi touches in the final product. More than 25 years later and I still smile when I see Bruce Campbell getting hit in the face, knowing full well that it is Sam Raimi on the other end of the camera hitting him. Surprisingly, moments did indeed feel Evil Deadish to me, with the flying witches holding out their hands in a deadite possession form. But I digress. Oz is a good film, with weaknesses that bring it down. Raimi and two witches try their best to elevate some bland material and in the end we are left with a film that is neither great, nor memorable....just satisfactory enough.
Side By Side is a documentary that looks at the evolution of digital
filmmaking and the possible death of photochemical film processing.
Which directors are behind which format, why and what the future
possible holds for movies.
I was immediately interested in this film when I saw the trailer awhile back and now that I finally got the chance to see it, I can safely say that this film takes an objective view from those who use the tools at the film versus digital debate. Keanue Reeves (who knew right?) asks filmmakers such as George Lucas, James Cameron, Martin Scorsese, Christopher Nolan, David Fincher and Steven Soderberg, among others, about their views on film and digital. As well as those who are responsible for the look of the film, the cinematographers.
The film seems to have the filmmakers take sides with which format they would like to use. You have obvious advocates of digital filmmaking from George Lucas, who after shooting Attack of the Clones on digital said he will never shoot film again, and James Cameron, who is always pushing the boundaries of technology. Then on the flip side you have those who love the purity of film, such as Christopher Nolan, who even goes a step beyond 35 mm film and digital and shoots parts of his films on IMAX and his trusted cinematographer Wally Pfister. Both sides put up great arguments for and against the medium, but I think the answer here isn't one or the other, its what medium best serves the story.
It's interesting hearing the process of making a movie on film versus digital and how it affects every aspect of the production line. Some people love the speedy and constant shooting of digital, Fincher does take after take after take. Shooting on digital gives him the ease of this, much to the disdain of some actors, like Robert Downey Jr who need the luxury of a rest between takes. A luxury that shooting on traditional film is able to give those actors and the crew time to readjust. Is the endless availability of footage a good thing or a bad thing? When you hear film going through that camera, you hear money ticking away, so everyone has to be on their A-game, you have to work as if every shot must count. Digital would give you a more relaxed environment, maybe too relaxed?
This film looks at those sides of the arguments, presents them to the viewer from the director from their own experience. It's interesting to see how someone has used one format, but then quickly changes and adopts the other, people like Robert Rodriguez who jumped ship after Kucas did Clones, with Once Upon A Time In Mexico. This gave him the ability to shoot Sin City, a feat that he claims would not be possible on film.
What this film did lack though, was enough in the corner of film. It felt like it was Nolan and Pfister on their own with Scorsese kind of jumping back and forth. The film needed the voice of Tarantino, Paul Thomas Anderson and Steven Spielberg to give film the "star power" that it needed, cause it seemed to get beat up by Lucas, Cameron and even David Lynch of all people.
Side By Side is a fascinating look inside the world of filmmaking, a brief history and a glimpse into the future. Is digital on par with film? People would argue yes, many would say no. Lucas is making the point that film is as good as it is ever going to be, so why not try to push digital beyond that. Peter Jackson's The Hobbit was shot at 48 frames to give it a better look and people hated it. So what's the answer here? Trust something we've used for the past hundred years? Or look and push for something new? Like I said earlier, these two format need to be available to everyone. Film cannot die, the more tools available to us, the better the film will be.
In a small town there is a mysterious figure know as The Tall Man, who
abducts children. When a widowed nurse discovers her own child has been
abducted, she will stop at nothing to unravel the legend of The Tall
That's the synopsis I'm writing because that's the synopsis the creative team behind this film want you to believe. Suffice to say, this film does indeed trick the audience, much like The Village did back in 2004. The Tall Man is a poor man's Gone Baby Gone via the horror genre.
I will say this, the film had me wanting to know what was going to happen next because I was absolutely confused when the film hits the half way mark. I started to unravel things before the reveal happened near the end, but this film is not what people are going to be expecting. Those who want a "mother will stop at nothing to get her child back" type flick will be in for some major disappointment once the credits roll.
From Pascal Laugier, the director of one of the hardest films I've ever had to sit through, Martyrs, is behind the lens here. This film is nowhere near as uncomfortable as Martyrs, but equally enraging. Events unravel that beg the viewer to ask why, how, and huh? To say that the film looses steam near the end is an understatement, despite me wanting to know where things were going. Since the film takes a few different directions, the pacing and structure is totally off. All the thrills are gone half way through and we are left with questions that although eventually get answered, leave the viewer feeling cheated.
The Tall Man is marketed as a horror thriller and you'll get that for the first half, after that it ventures into some social status mumbo jumbo in the same realm of Gone Baby Gone, which did it much better.
|Page 1 of 57:||          |