Clive Barker seemed destined to take over the horror genre back in the late eighties with his directorial debut Hellrasier. While the film became a cult classic and Stephen King named Mr. Barker "the future of horror", he never seemed to take off and have a mainstream career one would have thought he deserved or a career that most horror fans thought he would head into. After writing numerous novels and short stories as well as directing some of them in full length features, he's always been more underground not running atop the mainstream audience. The case is even further proven with evidence from his latest adaption The Midnight Meat Train.
The film stars Bradley Cooper (the asshole from Wedding Crashers) as Leon the photographer. He constantly tries to get his big break as he captures moments of realistic human actions that are represented in the city of New York. Early in the film he has a run in with a couple of thugs trying to hurt a woman and ends up getting the realism that a local art dealer played by Brooke Shields loves and admires. She tells him to get two more exactly like that capturing the evil of the human soul and he'll be put into her art show. Ecstatic at the opportunity he's been given he's off too collect more photos. Everything seems to go well until he finds out that the woman he saved during the mugging is now missing. When he has an ida of who may have done it, he continues to follow a man on the late night subway. As he continues to follow the man (played by the great Vinnie Jones) he finds out that there's more to this "case" then just the missing woman and becomes obsessed trying to find out this man's story that eventually turns into bloodshed and answers no man would truly want to know.
The film was directed by Ryuhei Kitamura who directs his first English film. The film had great direction and plenty of character development which can also give credit to Jeff Buhler who wrote the film's screenplay basing it off Clive Barker's short story of the same name. The film is plenty dark and gives an almost depressing vibe to the film's tone. While it may hurt the film and keep it not very mainstream, it surely sets the film up for it's dark and depressing ending.
While it may sound like I'm trying to talk you out of this film...I'm not. The film is very intense at times and also has some great shots that take you out of the film for a minute to admire the film, then sucks you right back in. The acting by Bradley is very down to earth and sympathetic as we follow down this road that may get him in for more than he bargained for.
The film is also very brutal in terms of gore and has plenty of gross out scenes which serves great for the hardcore horror fans. While I've touched the subject before in past reviews, the CGI of the gore will ruin it though. While some look very realistic and haunting, some look absolutely fake and bring the film to an almost "made for Sci-Fi channel channel" look.
Overall it's an alright flick, I expected more. It's much better than the horror films that reign the screens these days but it's still missing something. While Barker has always been on the dark side of things, sometimes he needs to come back and make his stories a little less dark and morbid and a little more lighter and optimistic. Because if he doesn't, he'll never find the audience that he very much deserves.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Rear Window (1954)
Can you have more than one masterpiece doing anything that requires talent? Because after all a masterpiece is the definitive one right? Well every review you'll read for most of Alfred Hitchcock's film you'll see somewhere in the text...masterpiece. Now i don't wanna jump on the bandwagon, but he did have a lot of masterpieces, including Rear Window.
I don't wanna bore you with the plot details because odds are you know the story. (Why else would you be reading this?) But basically man gets hurt and breaks leg, doesn't leave house, sees murder next door and becomes obsessed with the event. The story itself is pretty clever and original from a script written by John Michael Hayes who recently passed away last year.
Of course you got the players. Jimmy Stewart as always does an excellent job of becoming the everyday man you care for and relate to. Sometimes I forget I'm watching an actor because you get so caught up in his ability to be believable. But you can't forget the incredible Grace Kelly who (horrible unintended pun coming up) graces the screen with every scene she's in. While she is talented at what she does, it's her beauty and elegance that make her so desirable to watch.
The movie as a whole is directed with such precise and profession (duh) by the great Alfred Hitchcock. Every scene is carefully planned or he's just that natural of a talent for storytelling. While the suspense itself doesn't really hit hard towards the end, every scene between Jimmy and Grace is very entertaining even if it does or not pertain to the murder at hand.
While the movie is a classic and will be shown to further generations (unless they want to use the entertaining knock off Disturbia)it will open others minds to what a good film use to be. One that had well crafted sets, great acting, believable dialog and one that didn't rely on endless action making this a true...masterpiece.
I don't wanna bore you with the plot details because odds are you know the story. (Why else would you be reading this?) But basically man gets hurt and breaks leg, doesn't leave house, sees murder next door and becomes obsessed with the event. The story itself is pretty clever and original from a script written by John Michael Hayes who recently passed away last year.
Of course you got the players. Jimmy Stewart as always does an excellent job of becoming the everyday man you care for and relate to. Sometimes I forget I'm watching an actor because you get so caught up in his ability to be believable. But you can't forget the incredible Grace Kelly who (horrible unintended pun coming up) graces the screen with every scene she's in. While she is talented at what she does, it's her beauty and elegance that make her so desirable to watch.
The movie as a whole is directed with such precise and profession (duh) by the great Alfred Hitchcock. Every scene is carefully planned or he's just that natural of a talent for storytelling. While the suspense itself doesn't really hit hard towards the end, every scene between Jimmy and Grace is very entertaining even if it does or not pertain to the murder at hand.
While the movie is a classic and will be shown to further generations (unless they want to use the entertaining knock off Disturbia)it will open others minds to what a good film use to be. One that had well crafted sets, great acting, believable dialog and one that didn't rely on endless action making this a true...masterpiece.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
The Mist (2007)
Lets be honest, I know I'm not going out on a limb here when I say most Stephen Kings novels/stories don't translate well to film. Sure there's been the good ( Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, Stand By Me) but there's also been plenty of bad ones (Graveyard Shift, Langoliers, The Mangler). So it's no surprise that when a film based on Stephen's work is released to the public, one can only fear the worse. So how did I feel about the adaptation of King's The Mist? Definitely one of the better.
The story starts off with a father (the underrated Thomas Jane)taking his son and neighbor to a local convenience store. Soon after arriving a large amount of fog surrounds the outside building containing the unknown and trapping them inside. As time goes by cabin fever sets in and the surviving towns people inside begin to turn on one another. While the story itself is not very complex or complicated, it's the way that it's told that keeps the audience entertained and drawn into this supernatural world.
Written and directed by Frank Darabont whose worked on previous successful King adaptations, is very precise when it comes down to making this film. Frank takes his time throughout the story to create suspense and mystery as we feel like we're in this with the characters. He's also very smart when it comes down to character development. These people aren't put into the movie just to have another face, yet to contribute to the story making you care, feel and relate to them.
While the movie was great it had one minor flaw that for me was hard to get past. I've never been a big fan of CGI (like most) yet for some reason other's love to use it. It doesn't ruin the movie really in any way, but it does take a little of the realism away from the story.
Overall it's one of the better Stephen King translations I've seen and also one of the better horror movies I've seen in awhile. If others could just take a clue from movies like these and worry more about character development and situations as opposed to CGI and creative ways to kill someone, maybe their films too would become classics.
The story starts off with a father (the underrated Thomas Jane)taking his son and neighbor to a local convenience store. Soon after arriving a large amount of fog surrounds the outside building containing the unknown and trapping them inside. As time goes by cabin fever sets in and the surviving towns people inside begin to turn on one another. While the story itself is not very complex or complicated, it's the way that it's told that keeps the audience entertained and drawn into this supernatural world.
Written and directed by Frank Darabont whose worked on previous successful King adaptations, is very precise when it comes down to making this film. Frank takes his time throughout the story to create suspense and mystery as we feel like we're in this with the characters. He's also very smart when it comes down to character development. These people aren't put into the movie just to have another face, yet to contribute to the story making you care, feel and relate to them.
While the movie was great it had one minor flaw that for me was hard to get past. I've never been a big fan of CGI (like most) yet for some reason other's love to use it. It doesn't ruin the movie really in any way, but it does take a little of the realism away from the story.
Overall it's one of the better Stephen King translations I've seen and also one of the better horror movies I've seen in awhile. If others could just take a clue from movies like these and worry more about character development and situations as opposed to CGI and creative ways to kill someone, maybe their films too would become classics.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Bride of Frankenstein? No Thanks.
Going into this film I wasn't expecting much considering the fact that most sequels are made for the sole purpose of the almighty dollar bill, but I couldn't help but be a little excited. On numerous occasions I've heard that this film was a classic and seen it top plenty of top fifty lists stating it's quality. Unfortunately i couldn't agree.
The film starts off with a "previously on Frankenstein" as if you hadn't seen the original or happened to forget everything that had happened. This is all narrated by the original book's author played by Elsa Lanchester commenting that "it wasn't the end of the story", yet by the end of the film you wish it would have been.
After the brief recap it starts exactly where the first one ended. We find out that the monster (played by Boris Karloff who's acting abilities were wasted in this one) didn't die and that Dr. Frankenstein (the always great Colin Clive) isn't dead either. After settling in the story Dr. Pretorius shows up and throws out the option of creating another of the undead. This happens only hours after the first town wreckage, so the doctor thinks creating a new one couldn't happen soon enough. Pretorius kidnaps Dr. Frankenstein's love (Valerie Hobson) and soon the doctor has no choice yet to help Pretorius do the unthinkable so he can once again be with his one and only.
The film is directed by James Whale who does a great job of what he has to work with. The sets look outstanding and there are plenty of nice shots. What really needed to be worked on here was the unsatisfying script that tried to have the impact of the first, yet came off weak. When we watch the first one the pace is perfect and everything we see is shocking or exciting because we're intrigued. There was nothing in this film's plot that stuck out to me saying "I need to see this". Perhaps if the pace was picked up and something besides making the same mistake again was changed in the script, it might of picked up a few more fans including myself. To me it came off if anything like one of the endless yet entertaining Friday the Thirteenth films.
Also, plenty of people will say there are loads of underlying homosexual meanings, which makes sense when watching the film. There is also talk of who the "real bride" is supposed to be. (There's plenty of information on the net if you want to find out more on the clever hidden meanings.) Although you shouldn't have to depend on finding a hidden meaning to enjoy a film. You should be able to watch a film for what it's worth and just be entertained. I'm not saying a mindless shoot em up film is better than this, but not everything has to be so deep all the time.
Overall it wasn't the best film I've ever seen and it wasn't the worst. While it was entertaining I wish they would have let this one go and concentrated on a little more on other Universal Monsters. Frankenstein was a classic stand alone film and in no way did it need a continuation.
The film starts off with a "previously on Frankenstein" as if you hadn't seen the original or happened to forget everything that had happened. This is all narrated by the original book's author played by Elsa Lanchester commenting that "it wasn't the end of the story", yet by the end of the film you wish it would have been.
After the brief recap it starts exactly where the first one ended. We find out that the monster (played by Boris Karloff who's acting abilities were wasted in this one) didn't die and that Dr. Frankenstein (the always great Colin Clive) isn't dead either. After settling in the story Dr. Pretorius shows up and throws out the option of creating another of the undead. This happens only hours after the first town wreckage, so the doctor thinks creating a new one couldn't happen soon enough. Pretorius kidnaps Dr. Frankenstein's love (Valerie Hobson) and soon the doctor has no choice yet to help Pretorius do the unthinkable so he can once again be with his one and only.
The film is directed by James Whale who does a great job of what he has to work with. The sets look outstanding and there are plenty of nice shots. What really needed to be worked on here was the unsatisfying script that tried to have the impact of the first, yet came off weak. When we watch the first one the pace is perfect and everything we see is shocking or exciting because we're intrigued. There was nothing in this film's plot that stuck out to me saying "I need to see this". Perhaps if the pace was picked up and something besides making the same mistake again was changed in the script, it might of picked up a few more fans including myself. To me it came off if anything like one of the endless yet entertaining Friday the Thirteenth films.
Also, plenty of people will say there are loads of underlying homosexual meanings, which makes sense when watching the film. There is also talk of who the "real bride" is supposed to be. (There's plenty of information on the net if you want to find out more on the clever hidden meanings.) Although you shouldn't have to depend on finding a hidden meaning to enjoy a film. You should be able to watch a film for what it's worth and just be entertained. I'm not saying a mindless shoot em up film is better than this, but not everything has to be so deep all the time.
Overall it wasn't the best film I've ever seen and it wasn't the worst. While it was entertaining I wish they would have let this one go and concentrated on a little more on other Universal Monsters. Frankenstein was a classic stand alone film and in no way did it need a continuation.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
The Bride of Frankenstein - 1935
Going into this film I honestly didn't expect much considering that most sequels tend to be made for the sole purpose of the dollar bill. Yet I've heard on numerous occasions that this film was a classic, so to be honest I couldn't help but be a little excited to watch it. Unfortunately I was let down.
The film starts off with a recap of what previously happened in the original Frankenstein as if you hadn't seen it, followed by the original book's author played by Elsa Lanchester commenting that "it wasn't the end of the story", yet by the end of the film you wish it would have been.
After the recap it starts exactly where the first one ended. We find out that the monster (played by Boris Karloff who's acting abilities were wasted in this one) didn't die and that Dr. Frankenstein (the always great Colin Clive) isn't dead either. After settling in the story Dr. Pretorius shows up and throws out the option of creating another of the undead. This happens only hours after the first town wreckage, so the doctor thinks creating a new one couldn't happen soon enough. Pretorius kidnaps Dr. Frankenstein's love (Valerie Hobson) and soon the doctor has no choice yet to help Pretorius do the unthinkable .
We go through the entire film without seeing this Bride until the last ten minutes which makes it a little more epic (although I was kind of expecting to see more of her) and a little more sad when we see the outcome.
The film is directed by James Whale who does a great job of what he has to work with. The sets look outstanding and there are plenty of nice shots. What really needed to be worked on here was the unsatisfying script that tried to have the impact of the first, yet came off weak. When we watch the first one the pace is perfect and everything we see is shocking or exciting because we're intrigued. There was nothing in this film's plot that stuck out to me saying "I need to see this". Perhaps if the pace was picked up and something besides making the same mistake again was changed in the script, it might of picked up a few more fans including myself. To me it came off if anything like one of the endless yet entertaining Friday the Thirteenth films.
Overall it wasn't the best film I've ever seen and it wasn't the worst. While it was entertaining I wish they would have let this one go and concentrated on a little more on other Universal Monsters. Frankenstein was a classic stand alone film and in no way did it need a continuation.
The film starts off with a recap of what previously happened in the original Frankenstein as if you hadn't seen it, followed by the original book's author played by Elsa Lanchester commenting that "it wasn't the end of the story", yet by the end of the film you wish it would have been.
After the recap it starts exactly where the first one ended. We find out that the monster (played by Boris Karloff who's acting abilities were wasted in this one) didn't die and that Dr. Frankenstein (the always great Colin Clive) isn't dead either. After settling in the story Dr. Pretorius shows up and throws out the option of creating another of the undead. This happens only hours after the first town wreckage, so the doctor thinks creating a new one couldn't happen soon enough. Pretorius kidnaps Dr. Frankenstein's love (Valerie Hobson) and soon the doctor has no choice yet to help Pretorius do the unthinkable .
We go through the entire film without seeing this Bride until the last ten minutes which makes it a little more epic (although I was kind of expecting to see more of her) and a little more sad when we see the outcome.
The film is directed by James Whale who does a great job of what he has to work with. The sets look outstanding and there are plenty of nice shots. What really needed to be worked on here was the unsatisfying script that tried to have the impact of the first, yet came off weak. When we watch the first one the pace is perfect and everything we see is shocking or exciting because we're intrigued. There was nothing in this film's plot that stuck out to me saying "I need to see this". Perhaps if the pace was picked up and something besides making the same mistake again was changed in the script, it might of picked up a few more fans including myself. To me it came off if anything like one of the endless yet entertaining Friday the Thirteenth films.
Overall it wasn't the best film I've ever seen and it wasn't the worst. While it was entertaining I wish they would have let this one go and concentrated on a little more on other Universal Monsters. Frankenstein was a classic stand alone film and in no way did it need a continuation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)