TeresofBlood Reviews

Book of Blood (2009)

A consistently mediocre film from start to finish

[6/10 · 13 June 2009]

I went into this film with no expectations whatsoever. I had a very vague idea of what the story was. And while I enjoyed the film, it is plagued by mediocrity at every turn, so much so that by the end, you are almost taken completely out of the film, because you're tired of waiting for it to get good.

The biggest problem lies in the script. The characters are all one-dimensional. At no point do we feel like we know anything about anyone. This is frustrating in a film that wants us to be scared. We can't be scared if we don't identify with our characters. The dialogue is also inane and incredibly bland. There isn't a single flair of writerly wit in the entire script. Every exchange feels as if it was rushed through by the writer, never developing the dialogue beyond the purpose of getting from A to B.

Speaking of bland, the visual style of the film is very bleak and one-note. The film sports a dull gray look, that borders on black and white, throughout the entire film. It gets very boring to look at. All of the lighting schemes were flat and without any kind of flair as well. The shots are just as boring. I don't think there is a single outstanding piece of cinematography in the entire film. Everything is very by the book, and like so much of the film, bland and mediocre.

Before I jump into the performances, I want to say that none of the actors are bad. They did not have first class material to work with, but at the same time, no one seems overly dedicated to their roles. Each person seems to have only a basic understanding of their character. No one does anything special in their performance. Like the dialogue and the visual style, it is all very one-dimensional. This film would have benefited from using well-known actors. Since we don't get to know them in the story, it would have been helpful if thew audience knew them before the film even started. This is a sentiment that is inevitable with known actors.

Oh, I have forgotten to say what the film does well. The special effects are quite good. There is gore that will make you gag and occurrences that will shock you. For such an obviously low-budget film, these are effects that would make Hollywood proud.

Overall, there is nothing bad about this film. It has some great ideas, and it is good at its core, but it does nothing great. It barely does anything good. It is proficient. It is mediocre. It is just another example of the lack of Justice we have come to expect from adaptations of Clive Barker's material.

Halloween (2007)

Loved by someone who hates remakes.

[7/10 · 1 September 2007]

I saw the film last night and let me start off by saying I love the original. It is without question the best slasher film ever made. I went into this with not only low expectations, because of all the negative things I heard, but I also went in with no preconceived notions about the deviations it would make from Carptenter's original. As a fan of Zombie's last outing, "Devil's Rejects" I knew the style I could expect for the film.

In the first act of the film we see Myers as a child. There are a lot of cringe worthy moments in the first act, like William Forsythe's over the top (and sometimes) funny redneck character. But overall it was very convincing. The scene with the bully in the woods was very disturbing to me. It was a great way to kick start the movie. The first act ends with Myers brutally murdering his family and I think this scene is very well done, and frightening; not scary as in Michael hiding in the shadows, but very scary to watch in a brutal "Last House on the Left" kind of way.

The second act details Michael's years in the mental hospital with Doctor Loomis. There are some very compelling parts in this act, where we see Michael's slow progression from talkative, to deadpan. We see his mother's desperation as she visits her son. we feel a lot of sympathy for her character. She has perhaps one of the most sympathetic and powerful scenes in the movie. There is also some great, but understated acting by Danny Trejo in this act.

We also see Michael as an adult in the hospital, now a hulking mass. I was worried when I saw how tall he was, but luckily the cinematography works in such a way that for most of the movie we can't quite tell he's that tall. There is a scene between adult Myers and Loomis, that is simple and short, but is very telling about Myers' character, to me. He feels things. He doesn't want to be given up on because he's always been ignored and given up on. I think the audience feels that vibe without it needing to be said. I felt it. Michael's mission is to find someone who could not/ would not ignore him.FINALLY, we get to Haddonfield and meet the girls. I think the fact that it took so long for us to get here is what angered die-hard fans of the original. I myself would have liked to see a little more of them before the crap hit the fan, but it certainly wasn't bad. The scenes between the three girls were very enjoyable and fun. I liked Zombie's incarnations of these three iconic characters. I think he did them justice in this new generation. When the killing starts, I felt it happened a little too fast. Bob's death felt seriously rushed; don't worry that's not a spoiler. All of the other death scenes very satisfying and very terrifying. Once again, there are very few jump moments in the film, but the fact that we know Michael is coming is what makes it scary. The climax of the film is also very terrifying and thought-provoking at the same time. Rob succeeded in making it scary again. He also succeeded in turning Michael Myers from a shape to a character.

I think something that helped make the film scary was the cinematography. The shaky-cam effect got a little annoying at one or two points, but for this gritty, graphic horror style, it works beautifully. It gives the film a sense of realism, which I think is what it needed to bring back the fear. There is also a great music score accompanying the film in all the right moments. It is a rehash of John Carpter's original, incredible score and here I think it works as well as it did in the original. I can't say anything bad about the cast of the film. Everyone was great; everyone served their purpose to the film. Danielle Harris and Scout-Taylor Compton were excellent I thought. Both turned out very powerful performances - especially Harris. Malcolm McDowell had some cringe-worthy lines to deal with, but I think he was a great modern day Loomis. I don't compare him to Donald Pleasance in the original, but he was great in his own right.

All in all I really loved the film; much more than I expected. For me, it's on par with the original. Not that I think this is better, but on a list of great movies I think they would fall about even. Those who go to see this hoping it will improve upon the arc created in the original by John Carpenter will hate it. In a nutshell this is a remake in concept alone - a young boy kills his family, goes mad and stalks teens several years later. It is a remake of the concept. Keep that in mind and you will love it. I without question will see it again.

There is a lot to the plot that I don't mention in this review, but A. I didn't want to spoil anything and B. I didn't want to write a book. What I mention are the things that stood out to me.

Payback: Straight Up (2006 Video)

Blows theatrical away

[8/10 · 31 August 2007]

I think this was miles ahead of the theatrical cut. People probably knock it so much because of the "bond" they have established with the theatrical version over the years.

I having never seen either version, I unbiasedly watched Payback a few days ago. I liked it, but I didn't think the last act suited the movie at all. It felt not only tacked on, but it had a different tone and took the movie in a different direction that it should have gone. Gibson's character is a very destructive person, and I just couldn't see it ending so perfectly.

When I saw this version however, I thought it was not only a much better film, and suited the tone of the film much more, but it is also a better homage to the revenge-type films from the 70's.

This film had a very consistent musical score that was very pleasant to listen to throughout. It's the music that should have been. As much as I love Jimi Hendrix and BB King, they were out of place as you never really heard music like that in 70s revenge films. I liked the look of the film as well - the bleached, high contrast look. It was perfect for the gritty nature of this version.

It was also a much darker version. Mel Gibson is much harsher toward his wife when he comes home, and as hard as that is to watch, it feels more appropriate. He is justified in doing what he does. I felt she got off too easy in the theatrical cut.

People complain that they miss Gibson's humor in this version. I don't think the book its based on was ever meant to be humorous, nor were many 70s revenge films. There was a bit of humor in the director's cut, but it all stayed serious in the end, unlike the joke of an end in the theatrical cut.

There were a lot of bits missing here and there from both versions, none of which was really missed from this edit. I noticed that scenes were missing, but it added a bit more mystery to the plot.

The most important change to this cut is in the last act. In the theatrical cut, I found the last act to be very trite, light and out of place. For a movie that began very dark, it ended on a light note that didn't suit the film at all. The final act in this edit was more in line with the great endings of 70's style films. It kept building and building and building. You didn't quite know what was going to happen. It also has a very mysterious ending. You don't quite know what is going to happen and therefore it makes you think. The theatrical version was severely dumbed down. I guess they didn't want us to think.

This is the version that should have been released theatrically. It is the version that I will revisit in the future.

The Black Dahlia (2006)

Better than expected... if you like Film Noir

[8/10 · 23 September 2006]

The film turned out to be much better than I expected. In terms of style and storytelling, it felt, from beginning to end, like an authentic Film Noir. The cinematography was amazing, with a lot of Deep Focus shots, it really adds so much to the ambiance of the film. Visually, the film is amazing.

In terms of the plot, the first half hour feels unnecessary and overly visual, but after that, you lose yourself in the compelling plot. It feels very much like a novel, in that novels are often filled with events that add little to the film. For instance, the film opens with a riot scene between zoot-suits and service men. This event adds nothing to the plot, but it's one of those nuances the writer of the novel included to entrench us in his world. In the world of film, every event has to add something to the plot, because films can never be as long as the novels that inspire them. The plot is very dramatic. Those expecting to see a thriller will be disappointed, but those looking for an excellent Film Noir, will enjoy it.

In terms of casting, I think the film accomplishes its goals very well. Hartnett in the lead does quite well. He is enjoyable to watch throughout, though there are a few moments that could've used a little more emotion, but then again, Film Noirs are always filled with stoic characters. Aaron Eckhart was great as the passionate, but flawed cop. There is little to complain about in his performance. Johansson was perfect in her role. Like her role in "The Man Who Wasn't There," her personality is right out of the time period. She has such an old-fashioned look to her, and it works for her in this film. She would not be better served playing one of the film's seductresses, as I think people were expecting. I feel that Hilary Swank overacted at times, but in the end, she provoked the desired audience reaction beautifully.

The music on the film perfect for the type of film. From beginning to end, it feels like the perfect Film Noir score. Dare I say, it is reminiscent of Chinatown at times. It is very authentic and adds an entire dimension to the film.

My only real problem with the film is the ending. There is so much going on that the film attempts (and fails) to wrap everything up into a neat little box. This is the only time I found myself going, "what the hell just happened?" It doesn't kill the movie for me, because I see it as this film's way of staying with you after it ends.

All in all, if you were expecting an edgy thriller, this film is not for you. But if you're looking for a great Film Noir with many great dimensions and aspects, great acting, and great writing, this is the film for you.

One final thought to James Ellroy fans; this film is not as good as LA Confidential, but great in it's own right.

The Wicker Man (2006)

A Detailed Analysis

[4/10 · 2 September 2006]

The original Wicker Man is one of my favorite films, but I was very open to the remake, and I assure you that my opinion is unbiased.

In the remake, it seemed like they struggled to formulate a new plot, with many convoluted subplots that truly ruin the integrity of the film. It felt like a movie at all times. You are never so wrapped up in the story that you forget, unlike the original version. The original has an unbeatable authenticity that isn't found here.

Another huge problem with this film is that it tried to incorporate elements from the original that either led nowhere or just made no sense. For instance, the failure of the crops is significant in both films, but in this film they aren't crops - in any manner of speaking. Also, the natives practiced the same festival in the remake, but it isn't explained nearly as well, it is passed off as "just some festival".

One thing the remake did a terrible job at is foreshadowing. I knew how the film ended, and when I saw the original, I had no idea, but as I watched the remake I noticed little hints throughout the film - most were blatantly obvious. It does a terrible job of leaving the audience in tension, and it doesn't let us figure anything out for ourselves. I hate that.

A final issue I had with the film was the ending. I found the original to be much more emotional and shocking. The ending to this film tried to be more shocking and falls flat on it's face. In fact, I like the movie much less because of the new twist at the end. All in all, the original is superior in every way. See the remake to satisfy your curiosity, but for no other reason.

*Also, the 4 people I saw the film with have not seen the original, and they thought it was "just okay". Take my word for it.

The Scam Artist (2004)

Good for a young film maker. Nothing more.

[6/10 · 15 August 2006]

As an aspiring film maker, I see this as a personal achievement, but not a commercial achievement. I'm going to break the film down and review every aspect of it. ACTING: For the most part, much of this movie plays like a soap opera. Some performances are decent and some are annoying as hell. Surprisingly to many, Dallas Page's performance was by the the most compelling and entertaining in the film. STORY: The story was decent as well. I will not reveal many details, but let me say that the scam was well thought out by the writer, and there were some unexpected twists, but in the end it seems like an extremely roundabout way to do a job. MUSIC: The music is exactly what you hear in the trailer. It is very techno-esquire sounding. No real instrumentals. But it doesn't detract much from the viewing experience. It suits the subject matter. PICTURE: It doesn't look bad, but it was filmed at 30p, meaning it looks more like video than film. This is forgivable, but it limits its commercial marketability. SOUND: This is BY FAR the WORST aspect of the film. There is no sound design, whatsoever. The sound is inconsistent from one shot from the next, with loud hisses and pops in one shot and then in the next shot, there is no hiss at all. The sound design really detracts from the viewing experience.

One upside to the sound design, for me as an aspiring film maker, is that it showed me how important sound design is in the final product.

FINAL SUMMARY: This film is worth seeing for DDP fans and aspiring film makers. Aspiring film makers because this is a film shot on a 3.5 thousand dollar budget that received much acclaim, but still is not commercially marketable. Watch this film to see what it doesn't do well to improve your chances of making a commercially marketable film. Other than that, the film won't be worth much to the average viewer. However, I am a huge DDP fan, and his performance was so bad ass and cool at times that I will no doubt revisit this film in the future.

World Trade Center (2006)

It's NOT too soon! A short review.

[8/10 · 28 July 2006]

I like many, don't think about 9/11 every day. As time goes on, we seem to forget what happened. And with our nation in it's current state, we can't let ourselves forget.

This film touched me on many levels and reminded me of how I felt that day. It hit me even harder after the film ended because that's when, no doubt, everyone will sit around and reminisce about where they were when the got the news, which I did.

One thing the film does exceptionally well is it doesn't over dramatize the events. The film is very captivating and gut-wrenching, but at no point does it seem like the drama was exaggerated. It seems REAL.

The performances were all great. There's nothing to complain about there. You really feel like you're there. And the portrayal of the fireman is incredibly real and desperate(in a good way).

Bottom line is SEE this movie for two reasons - it is a great film with realistic drama, great performances and a strong impact(I felt it the most about 30 minutes after the film's conclusion). And see it to help you remember why we can never forget and take for granted what happened on September 11th.

***On one final note. Many know that Oliver Stone's films are usually his perception of history, rather than the actual history. Well this time, he's finally done right by his source material.