MovieProductions

**1/2 out of ****

Upon reading the reviews, a lot of them entailed that while "Oculus" is told in a non-linear fashion, that it makes sense in the end, and that everything is wrapped up in a nice little package. I think we saw a different movie.

"Oculus" revolves around brother and sister trying to figure out if the mirror is responsible for a tragic death that occurred, which landed brother into the loony bin.

Now what I liked about "Oculus" is what a lot of critics did as well: Mixing the past with the present, sometimes with events that are a figment of one of the character's imaginations, or seen from a character's different perspective. This leaves what could have been a typical "something went bump in the night!" story, behind. But why this doesn't work: It feels like there's no plot. Rather than having your exposition, your rising action, climax, etc., it's like there's no climax, there's no "ah! that's why this makes sense" moment. It's like watching fragments of a movie, with no complete picture.

One thing I must say is that the acting wasn't all-around spectacular like many lead me to believe. The sister was at times a bit much, and her "theories" got to get a little out of hand. It reminded me of those overt-religious movies that get too preachy. But other than a few times she got out of hand, she was solid. The brother was serviceable but nothing amazing. The father was a really good actor, but the mother was a little wooden. The little kid actors though stole the show. I might even start to believe the child actors were better than the grown-ups!

Now what's shocking about "Oculus" is how light it is on scares, and surprisingly, how much it relied on jump scares and cheap thrills. While every reviewer out there will try to hinder this fact, I'm going to tell you while the way it's presented is a little different, it's essentially the same scare-vehicle. You have people coming in and out of scenes, the whole "gotcha!" moments, etc. It was like "Insidious". But I have to hand it to the filmmakers, there was a few times I was watching "Oculus" where I was flabbergasted.

What a few reviewers picked up on was how pitch-perfect the editing was, and I agree. Studying editing myself, and cutting together some amateur videos, there was not one shot I would change, editing-wise. Everything ran at the length it should have, I liked transitions, etc. But as far as direction goes, the beginning and end leave a lot to be desired. I didn't have as much as an issue with the beginning as most people had, but some of the stuff just did not work. The dialog got to be cheesy, character motifs were pretty questionable, it felt at times like a rough draft. And that ending? I might not have taken a Psychology course, but even I don't think everything fit like a perfect package.

What stays the same in all these mirror movies are the complex structures, and I don't know why. "Mirrors" which came out maybe half a decade ago was completely nonsensical and rather dry. "Oculus" was more interesting you could argue, but still kind of perplexing and nonsensical in its structure.

I think the biggest problem with "Oculus" is not that it wasn't what I expected, in a matter of fact, that's what might get a lot of non-horror fans and general moviegoers to see this one. It's the fact that it is way too silly to take seriously at times. We already had to suspend our belief with the mirror already, but there's some instances that took me out of the film.

While it sounds like I found this movie highly problematic, I will say that it didn't disappoint me to the point where I regret seeing it. Not exactly praise, or a reason to get you to see this movie, but it's definitely different. I just wouldn't go in expecting something among the greats such as "The Conjuring". If you expect more like this year's "Insidious" or maybe even "Sinister", you'll walk away a little more fulfilled.

I'm going to give "Oculus" a mild recommendation and advise a matinée.

When people compile their list of favorite directors, Sofia Coppola is usually absent. While she hit a home run with "Lost in Translation", and while "The Virgin Suicides" put her on the map, there lies the clunky "Marie Antoinette" (I haven't seen it, but critically it was a misfire), and "Somewhere" isn't in the league of her first two films (both audience/critic-wise). So I can understand why she hasn't made lists yet.

What intrigued me about "Somewhere" was not only who was at the helm (Coppola), but in fact Coppola's interviews for the film. She said she envisioned the script when she stayed at the exact hotel the movie takes place in, and how it mirrored her and her father (Francis Coppola)'s relationship, back when she was a younger girl. She basically gave the impression this was a deeply personal film, including her taking control of the shots of the film, and with her writing credit as well as her directing credit, I couldn't wait to see how the film unfolded.

The critics were spot-on with "Somewhere". It's not a great movie because "Somewhere" turns into "Nowhere" at times, but it was worth going along the ride at least once. But what made the trip worthwhile? Like any review hasn't mentioned this, but the acting from Dorff and Fanning was nothing short of excellent. But the way Coppola uses facial expressions, long pans without any dialogue or movement, combined with aesthetics to create mood is definitely a skill she's picked up from film school. Everything here matches the tone perfectly, along with the pitch- perfect score (It was funny hearing Gwen Stefani's "Cool" in what appeared to be a 70's/80's set film, but to my surprise the time period was modern). I also loved the color palette/scheme of the film. Visuals here aren't exactly perfectly detailed, and at points it looks like it was shot at 35mm, but that's part of the charm.

Where did "Somewhere" go "Nowhere"? For starters, the pacing. Never once did I drift off the screen too much, but there's moments in the film where if it were to be exempt from the project, I don't believe it would disrupt the flow, or take anything away from the film from an emotional standpoint, but Coppola let all 97 minutes run by. Also, I understand Coppola's style of filmmaking is to let the pictures do the talking, not exactly the script, but some moments in the film (where a dilemma is reached), the audience is scratching their head because they aren't exactly sure what a motive is behind a character, or why it would be a big deal. And that ending could've used some work.

I don't doubt your average moviegoer will rip "Somewhere" to shreds. With its cautious pace, its quite environment, and anti-Hollywood portrayal (even if that's not a major concept Coppola tackles), this is not for everyone. However, just because a film may be different than what you are used to seeing doesn't mean it has to be bad, so this is where "Somewhere" succeeds. My advice to Coppola is that she continues to shoot films how she'd been shooting them, and to keep her aesthetics on a leash, but to give her characters more to work with because at times the experience can be lagging. All in all, despite some bumps in the road, "Somewhere" is worth seeing at least once to show how much Coppola has come along since her previous efforts.

** out of ****

While the first Thor generally received favorable reviews, it wasn't exactly met with acclaim. But I liked it a lot more than I had anticipated, so I thought lightning would strike twice (pun- intended), especially since this time around, reviews weren't too striking (pun-intended) for "The Dark World". With my logic, the reviews would REALLY not subside my experience of the film. Well... they were spot-on. The top critics that is.

I'm not going to re-tell the synopsis for you. It's Thor. It's the sequel. There's a comic book to it and when you read a review for a blockbuster sequel, you just want to know the simple answer to a very simple question: Is the movie good? No... but let's not get too carried away with the fact it's not great, because it's not bad. So where does the problem lie?

Well for starters, this movie was underwhelming as hell. With so many twists and turns, and changes in character motifs, you'd think the film would be very emotionally enveloping. But it just feels so dry, because the pacing is too abrupt to let you soak in the material. And characters just pop in and out of places, without a sense of cohesion or above-average scriptwriting.

The first to me really nailed the chemistries between characters, but this one didn't make me care for anyone with the exception of- you guessed it- Thor. I found Darcy to actually be borderline obnoxious here, and Jane was just... Natalie Portman. Even Anthony Hopkins felt underused with his character.

I understand being a sequel, you want to rush to the big action set pieces and show off every penny you've spent on graphics/effects, but what made the first Thor so great is while it was visually pleasing, it connected to its viewers on a more emotional level. This made for some truly epic moments and considering it took its time, the payoff was way more substantial.

Also, while I viewed this in 2D, I feel it would be so unnecessary to see in 3D. No 3D moments. It doesn't seem like it'd have this grand depth of field. It just looks like a lovely 2D production.

While "The Dark World" may snag an Oscar nom. for its art direction, there's a reason why the nominations stop there. I'm not saying "Thor" should aim at an Oscar (that'd be spectacular though), but just saying it should aim at least somewhat higher. With a more rushed pace, a lack of cohesion (feeling dodgy in parts), and a more than underwhelming resolution, "The Dark World" roped me into a lackluster one. It's not exactly a bad movie, but with the inflation of movie tickets, who wants to see an inferior sequel to a better-made original? (Which is cheaper to view by the way).