R.I.P.D. (2013), a paint-by-numbers approach to destroying a potentially fun movie with poor filmmaking
MY CALL: This could have been a very fun spin on Men in Black with evil spirits and undead law enforcement had it not been for soul-crushingly bad directing and film-editing which rendered this movie hardly watchable-maybe even unwatchable. IF YOU LIKE THIS WATCH: The Men in Black series (1997, 2002, 2012) for sure! They succeed in terms of budget, writing and direction where R.I.P.D. fails over and over again.
Let’s start by addressing something that must be acknowledged before we proceed to the review…I have a bro-crush on Ryan Reynolds (Safe House, The Change-Up). It’s no secret. He’s got a sharp sense of humor, even sharper features and abs, and is the leading cause of SHAD (screaming heart attack syndrome) in women under 40. I’ll admit it–I wish I was him, I want to hang out with him and he may be the only actor who I’d ever approach in public like a total fan boy. I have a history of defending his poor choices. Poor direction and even worse writing and character development led to the utter ruin of Green Lantern (2011), pulling Ryan into the wake of vicious criticism misdirected at the star instead of a stillborn script followed up by ill-execution. And while I was pretty disappointed with X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009), again I must blame the director and writers. Besides, every Marvel fan EVER is now totally stoked for the day that Ryan finally stars in a Deadpool movie–if only they’d stop the eternal buzz-cancel cycle. He’s one of the coolest guys ever and he gets a bad rap. People say “he’s no movie star.” But if Anthony Hopkins or Denzel was given a shit script I have a feeling people would suddenly rush to their defense and point their fingers at the director and/or lousy lines. Since Ryan has a history of choosing more “fun” movies, I guess he has yet to garner the clout of these more-reputed actors.
That said, I loved watching Ryan in R.I.P.D. That’s not to say that I liked the movie…which was horrible. But Ryan was his typical fast-on-the-trigger quippy self. I thought he acted his role well and provided what we wanted. Unfortunately, as has plagued him before, poor direction and even worse film-editing muted the effectiveness and timing of his better lines. Actually, this flaw hampered all of the lines and all of the scenes! This must be the most produced movie I’ve ever seen for which I specifically noticed the awful work that took place on the cutting room floor–a rare observation, I believe, if you stop to think about it. Outside of being a Ryan fan, this deficiency was so prevalent that I’d deem this movie nearly unwatchable to anyone who isn’t under the influence of a behavior-modifying substance.
This debacle follows Nick (Ryan Reynolds), a skilled cop who is murdered in the line of duty by his crooked partner. Then he joins an undead police force (the RIPD)–the origins of which are never explained–under the tutelage of a more experienced, critical joker of an 1800s lawman. Together they are charged with recovering souls that have escaped judgment and hide among the living. These evil souls, called “deados”, leave clues as a result of their foul “soul stank” and reveal their true form in the presence of Indian food–you got that…Indian food, OF F@(#!^@ COURSE, is the cosmic identifier of evil souls–even the mere suggestion or description of Indian food forces deados to reveal their true nature. That was a nice funny and utterly rando-insane touch.
If you saw the previews on TV and thought “well, this feels familiar,” it’s because it should be. This movie does more than simply borrow from Men in Black (1997). This basically IS Men in Black but with evil Hell-bound souls and undead lawmen instead of aliens and alien-hunting agents. Our RIPD characters are equipped with special weapons, hunt perps that the public doesn’t know about, have a special secret workplace and, since they couldn’t have a Neuralizer, they appear to the living in different forms: avatars. Jeff Bridges, who appears as drunk as when he’d step off the set of True Grit, appears as Victoria’s Secret supermodel Marisa Miller and Ryan Reynolds appears as “an old Chinese guy” (James Hong; Kung Fu Panda 2, Safe). Despite all the entertaining potential of this MIB remake, destitute filmmaking all the way from poor camera angle choices to post-production yields an unsavory result.
The poor choice to work on this movie was not Ryan’s alone. Kevin Bacon (Crazy Stupid Love, X-Men: First Class) strikes me as entirely out of place playing Ryan’s crooked cop partner. Every time I saw Bacon on screen all I could think was duuude? What are you even doing here!?!!?! Why are you in this? Whereas Jeff Bridges (TRON: Legacy, Crazy Heart) presents a mess of a hybrid between a more jovial version of his True Grit role and Men in Black‘s Agent K. Picking up Rip Torn’s MIB role is Mary-Louise Parker (RED 2, Weeds), who does fine, I guess. The deado CGI effects were also a mixed bag of fun, neat to look at, mundane or boring. Speaking of boring, the action at the end of the movie is really disappointing. The whole finale is disappointing–even the idea behind it.
There are a lot of beloved actors in this. But don’t trust them! It’s a TRAP!!!! This movie will likely make you lose respect for them. I can only hope that this will receive some special post-release Blu-Ray cut that better allows these actors to shine, be funny and entertain us. But as it stands this was more like watching Men in Black underwater without headphones or goggles.
Share this post:
Bad Movie Tuesday: When Horror Forgets its Roots
The new Evil Dead is a nasty little thing with none of the charm that made Evil Dead 1 & 2 and Army of Darkness cult classics (Horror Czar John loved it though. review). The movie introduces us to stock characters who will eventually die in incredibly bloody ways. Limbs will be lost, tongues will be cut in half, nail guns will be used, machetes swung, pliers plunged, crow bars bludgeoned and power knives used. It guides us through increasingly violent set pieces until an ending that literally rains blood.
While watching the Dead remake it got me thinking about They Live. John Carpenter made a trio of classics with Kurt Russel (The Thing, Escape from New York, Big Trouble Little China) in the 80s and looked to continue the epic run. However, Kurt wasn’t available for They Live so Carpenter cast professional wrestler Rowdy Roddy Piper to play the lead. Between the one-liners, relevant themes and bad acting the film has become a cult classic treasured by horror buffs and pop culture. The reason this film is still popular is because it has bumps and bruises (watch the fight below) that make it endearing.
Greatest fight ever!
The same thing goes for the original Evil Dead. The low budget, bad acting and creativity made it a classic. The movie exuded glee and showcased the skills of Sam Raimi. Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness are completely unique. They are equal parts bonkers, insane and wonderful. They shouldn’t exist on this planet because they are live action looney tunes of beautiful gore and pompous behavior.
Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell executive produced the 2013 remake and director Fede Alvarez wisely chose to make some changes. He cast the lovely Jane Levy as the lead and took out the zany humor and dancing skeletons. Alvarez makes thing bleed extraordinarily well and stays true to the original without stealing it’s style. However, in the process he has made a homogenized horror film that features familiar beats and bloody excess. I began to worry as Alvarez put more emphasis on the practical effects (lots of blood, makeup) than story. Whenever I hear how practical everything is I get worried because some movies care more about the look than the characters. So, you are stuck with great looking homicide and little reason to care.
The remake is too clean. Sure, it is dirty, violent and bloody. However, it is manicured violence much like many of it’s remake cousins. The acting isn’t bad, the characters are decent and the plot is nicely layered. This film lovingly steals from the predecessor and finds new ways to get to the same moments. The movie is done so well it left zero room for personality. The technical superiority made it a sleek pilot-less drone of bloody carnage.
Horror fans don’t ask for high art. They just ask to be entertained. Maybe that is why I love films like Devil, Insidious, Conjuring and Session 9. I got caught up in their stories and genuinely liked some the characters which allowed me to forgive the familiar tropes.
The technical superiority of the remade Evil Dead and adherence to the original series has created a film with little character. I hope in the future horror films allow themselves to have a little bit of fun.
Share this post:
I really liked Pacific Rim but it felt like Del Toro wrote it in an hour by slamming his beefy hands on a laptop. Here is my theory as to how this film happened. Del Toro wasted years trying to adapt The Hobbit, Mountains of Madness and Hellboy 3. So, one night he decided to write his own film. He drew a doodle, got lucky and sold Warner Brothers on the idea of monsters vs. robots. Throughout all the scouting, CGI prep and choreography he totally forgot to write a second draft.
Fun, dumb and full of monster scum. Pacific Rim is a rock ’em sock ’em adventure with a soul crushing script and fantastic imagery. Guillermo Del Toro reportedly wrote 400 pages of back story, scouted many locations and painstakingly created beautiful robots and monsters. However, the film raises many inadvertent questions. Who are these people? Why are their accents so wonky? Why don’t they use that sword every time? Why don’t they use missiles? Why is that one guy so angry? Where did the 400 pages of back story go? Did he write a 200 page autobiography about the fat ape monster called “This is Who I Am..A Monster?”
You wonder how a man who made a talking fish, fire starter and Hellboy seem human could write such a weird script. He works so hard at creating beautiful carnage he forgot to make anything else interesting. The movie got me thinking about Independence Day. ID featured wholesale destruction, memorable action and likable characters. Remember when Randy Quaid sacrifices himself to save the world? That scene was fantastic to a 14 year old me. You cared for the characters and that is why the movie made boatloads of money. The biggest problem with Pacific Rim are the characters.
Pacific Rim is about monsters who come out from a portal in the Pacific and run amok on the populace. The world leaders unite and start building giants robots to guard the coastline. The robots start winning and all is good until the monsters adapt and start crunching the robots. The robot program is discontinued in favor of a giant wall. However, the monsters destroy the wall and the humans are forced to make a last stand with four robots piloted by Russians, Japanese, Australians (I think the accents went in and out) and a cocky American.
What follows are MASSIVE FIGHTS, CGI monsters and zero character development. Ultimately, you leave the theater with a smile on your face. It is hard not to appreciate the scale of the film. Del Toro has made a genuine blockbuster that will undoubtedly be a favorite of many kids and teenagers. You watch in awe as thousands of people work on a robot in a massive factory. You smile when a robot hits a monster in the head with a 200 yard tanker. You appreciate the realism when teeth are punched out of a monster’s face.
What I love most about this film are the nasty monsters. They are mean, resourceful and want to kill everything. They show zero emotion and go for the throat 100% of the time. What began as a level one monster crushing San Francisco progressed to level four monsters wiping out robots. The monsters are like bosses in a video game. They get bigger and badder until the level five final behemoth boss.
Pacific Rim is a rollicking good time. It was built to please and it succeeds on most levels. I just wish the characters would have been as three dimensional as the large robots and portal monsters.
Welcome back Del Toro! Glad to have you around. Can’t wait to see what you do next!
?
Share this post:
The Way, Way Back: Sam Rockwell is My Hero
While watching the Academy Awards two years ago I was shocked when Nat Faxon and Jim Rash walked up onto the stage with Alexander Payne to collect their much deserved screenplay Oscars. Over the last ten years I’ve watched and liked them in Club Dread, Beerfest, Community and Reno 911 so it was wonderful to see them succeed. They won the gold statues for The Descendants and Jim Rash immediately endeared himself to the American public.
A decade of hustling had ended as the doors finally opened for the duo. What would they do with their new fame and success? They decided to direct a film they wrote called The Way, Way Back. The 2006 script had gotten Hollywood’s attention (Payne hired them because of it), landed on the blacklist and was never green-lit. However, with the gold statue in hand they raised five million dollars, gathered a wonderful cast and proceeded to make one the best films of 2013.
Movies like The Way, Way Back are rare. It wasn’t churned out of Hollywood, isn’t a sequel and Steve Carrel plays a jerk. It has a finely tuned script loaded with realism, poignancy and laughs. Rash and Faxon drew from their life experiences to tell the story of what it is like to grow up gawky in a divorced family. The opening dialogue from the trailer actually happened to Rash as he sat in the way, way back of his families station wagon.
The Way, Way Back is the small snapshot of a kid who spends the summer with his Mom and her controlling boyfriend. The adults drink, the kids are unsupervised and bonds are formed. His mom is busy with the first man who pursued her and his dad isn’t available (married younger woman and lives across the country). So, it is up to him to learn life’s lessons. There will be bumps, bruises, first love and unfortunate nicknames like “Pop & Lock.” His salvation comes in the form of the ultra charismatic Sam Rockwell and a relic of a water park called Water Wizz. Rockwell is the manager of the old park and he makes it his mission to look after the gawky introvert. Together, they wax poetic, play Pac-Man and form an endearing father/son relationship.
Sidenote: Rockwell keeps up the wonderful tradition of showing off his wonderful dance moves.
The Way, Way Back is a gem because it shows that everybody has growing to do. It is never easy and age doesn’t matter because there is always something to learn. This film understands that and character growth never feels false or tacked on. The love interests aren’t manic pixie women (Annasophia Robb is wonderful), no parent is perfect (Allison Janney is perfect) and the people who live like they are in a Hemingway novel have tons of problems (Rob Corddry is my hero). There are things in life worth growing up for and the characters realize that.
Between this and Mud 2013 has been a wonderful year for coming of age stories. They are movies that all teenagers should watch because they feature friendship, first love and two incredibly charismatic mentors (Matthew McConaughey and Sam Rockwell). These kids immerse themselves in the world, get in trouble and mature via life experience.
The Way, Way Back is wonderful. Watch it. Learn some dance moves. Hope Allison Janney gets nominated for an Oscar.
Share this post:
Bad Movie Tuesday: What happens when the horror ends?
SPOILER ALERT!!! READ NO FURTHER IF YOU WANT THE PLOT OF MAMA REVEALED. Read John’s non-spoiler wonderful review of Mama here.
Throughout the course of my cinema watching career there have been certain moments, villains and spin kicks that are so bad they’ve become intriguing. They’ve left me thinking about the movie long after it has finished. This particular post will be about the ending of the film Mama. Mama is not a bad film. It is confidently made, well acted and original. There are several fantastic shots and it seems well thought out. I say “it seems” because the ending leaves the heroes in a terrible spot that will likely result in a long court battle and years of jail time. It is the ghost equivalent of “a dingo ate my baby!” The people are innocent but it will be hard to explain to the courts.
The ending of Mama goes like this. Mama gets jealous and kidnaps the kids. So, yada yada yada Mama takes one kid and leaves the other. Mama and the child fall off a cliff where they turn into leaves and blend back in with nature. This is where the real problem starts.
Have you ever wondered how the people involved in horror films are able to explain all the death and destruction once the bad demon has been destroyed? I pondered this conundrum when Mama ended. How will they explain a missing child, mummified aunt and crunched psychiatrist? All the evidence has disappeared and the evil demon has become one with nature again. I do not envy their predicament.
This post destruction phase could make for ripe narrative territory. They have to explain a missing child who was with them the entire time. I don’t think Matthew McConaughey’s Lincoln Lawyer could prove “innocence via angry ghost.” The jury could not literally handle the truth of the situation. There are no dead zombies, rednecks or masked maniacs lying around so there is no one to put the blame on. Also, the surviving man’s twin brother became murderous and that is why the kids ended up in the care of an angry ghost mama. So, no alibi, unbelievable excuse and history of mental illness in the family will spell doom for the survivors. Will Jessica Chastain ever play in her band again? Will Nikolaj Coster-Waldau hear that he looks like Jaime Lannister in prison?
These are not the thoughts one should be having after watching a film. I should have been basking in the wonder of all things Mama but instead was scratching my head at the vague ending. I’d compare this to running a disciplined marathon and running off course ten feet before the finish line.
What do you think will happen?
Share this post:
Pacific Rim (2013), an epic live-action anime experience
MY CALL. Effects. Effects. Effects. That’s why you wanted to see this movie. NOT for a good story! This is live-action anime. If I hear one more fool (who thinks he’s a deep thinker) criticize the story while overlooking the action I’m going to lose it. You can’t sound smart if your critique of the story suggests this movie is “bad.” IF YOU LIKE THIS WATCH: Real Steel (2011) and Transformers (2007) successfully captured similar action and CGI-robot combat choreography.
This is one of those movies that gets your over-critical friends saying “it just looks like a big blob of CGI.” Sure, the scale of this summer blockbuster-style film is TREMENDOUS. But, unlike the Transformers sequels, it doesn’t get away from itself. No. We still find some Guillermo del Toroisms, especially in creature-creation and preternatural market senes. The story, on the other hand, is quite simple. It strikes me as something out of a videogame or a futuristic Dungeons & Dragons adventure. It’s no Troy (2004). Troy was an epic-scale war story that–among some AMAZING action sequences–still allowed its viewers to intimately understand the characters. Rim is less (successfully) character-driven. A few things are revealed about the characters, but they don’t seem to “develop.” But why was this movie made, how was it marketed and who was it made to please? Probably not a bunch of stuck up plot critics. No, this was made for sci-fi effects and action junkies. So, if you’re not willing to check your critic’s hat at the door, then I suggest you just shut up and wait for the next giant monster fight when you go see this.
Through some manner of portal between tectonic plates deep below the Pacific Ocean emerge giant behemoths called Kaiju. These creatures come all shapes and plus-sizes.
There’s your movie. If you need great writing to accompany this, then shame on you.
To save humanity all of the world powers set aside their differences to pool their finances and engineer Jaegers, giant robots jockeyed by paired, mind-melded (aka, drifting) pilots. All seems to be fine–given that we are under attack by 600 foot tall abominations–until the Kaiju start winning! Though simple behemoths at first, subsequently emerging Kaiju are bigger, smarter fighters with more bells and whistles. The world powers begin to doubt the Jaeger program, whose director Stacker Pentecost (Idris Elba; The Losers, Prometheus) is running out of options.
Despite the simple story, there is a steady flow of information to keep us informed and updated about the Jaeger program and what we know about the Kaijus. It provides a nice balance between the action, which was delivered with a sense of uncertain urgency as to just how bad things were going to become for the Jaeger pilots in many situations. To put it briefly, the dire consequences of piloting a Jaeger are realistically depicted even as we enjoy a world-threat story in which humanity actually unites instead of letting our differences impede our success.
Pentecost turns to ex-pilot Raleigh (Charlie Hunnam; Sons of Anarchy, Deadfall) and Mako Mori (Rinko Kikuchi; Assault Girls), who get the most attention among several pairs of Jaeger pilots we meet. Mori is meant to strong and complex, but to me her character seems ill-imagined and entirely out of place. Raleigh isn’t perfect either, but at least he’s not another one of those “reluctant heroes.” There’s a little romantic interest there and I think it fails both in execution and contribution to the movie.
Raleigh and Mako suited up
Interspersed between pilot-Jaeger highlights we have a pair of bantering scientists who provide some silly, charming comic relief. Dr. Gottlieb (Burn Gorman; The Dark Knight Rises, Red Lights) is some sort of physicist and Dr. Newt Geiszler (Charlie Day; who brings a welcomed quirky performance) is some combination xenobiologist-neurobiologist-biomedical engineer.
Lastly, Ron Perlman’s Hannibal Chau is a Kaiju parts broker. Why is he in this? I’d just say because del Toro can’t seem to make a movie without him…Hellboy 2, Blade 2, Cronos.
Returning to the effects, the effects make this movie. They don’t “save” it. They make it a satisfying experience all on their own. The Kaiju each come with their own distinct appearance and fighting style, and the same goes for each Jaeger and its pilots. In fact, the Jaegers and Kaiju are presented as their own named characters. Amazing attention to detail was placed on the movements of these over-sized combatants, their surroundings and how they destructively plow into and through them. I already can’t wait to watch it again because so much was going on in each of these fights that I feel I must have missed a lot of clever nuance.
See this movie. Then see it again!
Share this post:
Movienomics: Explosions and Movie Posters
Hello all. Mark here.
It all started with “the overcoat discovery.” Movie posters featuring Jason Statham in an overcoat averaged a 70% critical rating on Rotten Tomatoes whereas posters featuring him in suits/cardigans only received a 40% average. Of course, correlation and causation are impossible to predict but I found the results of the analysis to be intriguing, cheeky and fun. This got me thinking about movie posters that feature explosions. Do explosions matter? Does placement matter? Is it a marketing trick? Why are people standing motionless whilst engulfed in flames?
Our crew at MFF compiled a list of 266 action film posters (one poster per film. We used the theatrical trailer) from 2000-2013. We set up a spreadsheet and sent the data to my Swedish number crunching cousin to analyze. What follows is an exploration of whether movie posters can make a difference on box office and critical reception.
Without further ado here it is! Do explosions matter?
Most mainstream movie critics will tell you that, of the many different factors that can effect a given movie’s success, the placement of explosions in a move poster doesn’t rank in the top 5. Or 10. Or 1000. We say, “Whateves, it does.” Their response to that would probably be something like, “Any relationship you found between placement of explosions in a movie poster and success would be spurious.” To which we would reply, “Whateves. No one would use the term ‘spurious’ in any movie with an explosion on the poster. I think Vin Diesel would get an aneurysm just trying to pronounce it.” That imaginary debate (and unnecessary slap at the greatest actor to ever drive fast and furiously) is all we needed to crack the whip and get our interns to work digging up some (surprisingly reliable) data.
Objectives and Methodology
We started with a basic question: is there a relationship between the placement of explosions on action movie’s poster and of the movie success. We defined success in two ways: critical and financial. Our outcome measures for critical success are the movies scores on the Rotten Tomatoes and Cinema Score websites. Our outcome measure for financial success was a given movie’s total domestic box office gross.
Our sample was all (or at least most) big-budget action movies released in the US between 2000 and the mid-point of 2013. Here is how all of those 266 movies did on our two measures of success:
| Table 1 | |||
|
Critical Success |
Financial Success |
||
|
Rotten Tomatoes |
Cinema Score |
Domestic Box Office (from Box Office Mojo) |
|
| Top quartile |
68.3% |
74.0% |
$132.4 million |
| Median |
46.7% |
62.1% |
$98.8 million |
| Bottom quartile |
26.0% |
50.0% |
$28.0 million |
As you can see in Table 1, action movies scored better on Cinema Score’s (CS) rating methodology than they did on Rotten Tomatoes’ (RT). Biggest benefactors of the CS-bump were Underworld 2 (17% on RT and 77% on CS), Bad Boys 2 (23% on RT and 80% on CS), and Transformers 2 (20% on RT and 76% on CS). We would also point out that the average action movie released between 2000 and 2013 made close to $100 million dollars. Top three grossing flixs were Avatar ($760.5 million), The Avengers ($623.3 million), and The Dark Knight ($533.3 million)
Explosions and Success
If you accept our premise that the inclusion of explosions anywhere on an action movie’s theatrical poster can influence its critical and financial success, behold Table 2:
| Table 2 | |||
|
Average Critical Score and Box Office (Domestic) Gross |
Percent Change |
||
|
No Explosion in Poster |
Any Explosion in Poster |
||
| RT |
48.0% |
44.8% |
-6.7% |
| Cinema Score |
63.0% |
60.8% |
-3.5% |
| Box office/Domestic |
$95,574,193.55 |
$103,339,639.64 |
7.5% |
Apparently, action movies with an explosion on their theatrical poster did about 4.5 percent worse on both measures of critical success (e.g., RT and CS scores) but did about 7.5 percent better at the box office.
Conclusion
If you are producer and want to make a few extra bucks at the expense of a few Oscar votes, slap some explosions on your movie poster. If you’re an art-house director who needs those Oscar votes to (ironically) shore up your indie cred, leave them off. Or not. Whateves.
Next in our Series on Explosions on Posters…
We break down success by location of the explosion in movie posters. Does it matter whether or not the explosion is on the left or right!
Share this post:
The Conjuring: Good Looking Ghostbusters + A Credible Villain + James Wan = The Scariest Movie of the Year
The Conjuring is a wonderful beast. The acting, storytelling and massive amounts of dread are proof of a director on the top of his game. James Wan directed the wonderful Insidious and proved horror can be told on a budget and not be a remake, sequel or prequel. Certain critics complained of Wan’s usage of Poltergeist themes but as Alonso Durade of The Wrap so elegantly put it:
The Conjuring doesn’t try to reinvent the tropes of horror movies, whether it’s ghosts or demons or exorcisms, but Fred Astaire didn’t invent tap-dancing, either.
James Wan has become a maestro of mini-budget mayhem. He directed Insidious on a one million dollar budget (that equals one minute of Transformer’s 3). He tells tightly knit stories in which family is important, demons are totally evil and the acting is always wonderful. Wan made the incredibly smart decision to bring back Patrick Wilson from Insidious and add the wonderful Vera Farmiga. Together they play the real life couple Ed and Lorraine Warren who believe they were put together to do the world good. Aside from being the world’s best looking paranormal duo they have grace, charm and the authority to go head to head with persistent spirits. The real life Warren couple has a huge following (lovers and haters) and they inspired The Amityville Horror which was one of their cases. What I like most about this couple is they have a locked room inside their house where they keep all the evil (?) artifacts. They don’t want them destroyed because the spirits will be released and they don’t want them in the populace because they will continue to terrorize. You have to appreciate people who risk their safety to protect the world.
I’d compare Wan’s two latest films to the Fast & Furious franchise (He will be directing the seventh installment). Fast may have ripped off Point Break and feature 35 mile runways but they are told with confidence, intelligence and insane action set pieces. None of the films are Shakespeare but they are effective money makers that have huge followings. They’ve found ways to created likable characters who battle something bigger then themselves (With the exception of The Rock).
What I loved most about Insidious and The Conjuring is the people involved are all very nice and the haunting are WAY above their heads. They get entangled with evil and will do anything to protect their families and friends. Unlike other films like Sinister where terror is caused by selfishness these films focus on family. You understand why they stay in the house and why they can’t leave. Sure, there are moments when they look in mysteriously opened doors but these moments lead to creative set pieces inside the foreboding house. Another thing Wan excels at is creating scary images that stay burnt in your memory. I still can’t get the Jigsaw puppet from Saw out of my memory and his red demon still haunts me. In a day and age of annoying horror films that feature nothing memorable it is nice to be scared by shadowy demons who don’t photo bomb or wear skin masks.
I don’t want to give away anything about this film. From the trailers you know clapping, matches, good music and retro outfits will be involved. However, the movie covers several genres and gives us a big bad who relishes causing harm. Stay away from the trailers, don’t read too much about it and allow it to scare the crap out of you. If you are a horror buff don’t go into the film looking to complain. Empty your mind and allow Wan’s film to fill your senses with constructive shots, fantastic set design and creepy moments.
Watch The Conjuring. Appreciate James Wan. Hope he knocks Fast Seven out of the park. Check off the days till Insidious 2.
Share this post:
One of the best horror movies of the year? What, did this come out on New Year’s Day or something?
MY CALL: I had fun with it. Just try to ignore that this is a remake of a classic trendsetter and take this for what it is: an 80s-style slasher movie in which gore is celebrated and a shower scene is simply there to deliver bare breasts rather than to convey a sense of vulnerability and “will she die” tension. IF YOU LIKE THIS WATCH: Black Christmas (1974), Halloween (1978) and When a Stranger Calls (1979) were also born in the 70s and do a much better job at building tension and testing our nerves.
In this is a remake of the 1974 classic Black Christmas, the girls of Alpha Kappa are again slaughtered
during Christmas break. Our Alpha Kappas include Kelly (Katie Cassidy; A Nightmare on Elm Street, Harper’s Island), Melissa (Michelle Trachtenberg; Buffy the Vampire Slayer), Heather (Scream Queen Mary Elizabeth Winstead; Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer, The Thing) and Dana (Lacey Chabert; Thirst). To prime the story the girls and their house mother Ms. Mac (Andrea Martin; Phyl of the original Black Christmas) retell the story of Billy the Black Christmas killer, his twisted childhood and his daughter…
This background story spends far too much time explaining why Billy is the way he is much as the Halloween (2007) remake did for Michael Myers. In fact, any explanation is too much explanation. Both Billy and Michael Myers were originally scary for the same reason: no one knew why they killed or what motivated them. They just killed without reason and it was terrifying. This attempt to justify the killer’s psyche is an excellent example of how exposition truly is the death of good horror.
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Another unfortunate fault is that the sorority girls all have very similar personalities. Sure, one of them gets drunk (probably attempting to mimic Margot Kidder’s lushy debutante role from the original) and another is homesick, but under the surface these characters may as well be spun from the same mold. Stacking on the faults, this movie even failed to capture the creepiness of the call coming from “inside the house.” Not because it’s now been done so many times, but because it was too hammed up to be creepy. CALL “COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE” FAIL!!!
This has a classically perfect set up. A bunch of attractive college girls are blizzard-bound in their sorority house over Christmas break and an escaped, murderous mental patient who used to live in their house is on the loose. Through homogenous characters and exposition the story is ruined. But through brutal, gory deaths an entertaining movie experience was salvaged-for those of us who are in to that anyway.
Billy? Is that you under that wig? Noooooooo…
The gore is brutal and abrupt. Our killer doesn’t toy with his victims once they’re within reach. He’s really quite the dynamic slayer. Early on he sets the pace when he gauges then tears out an eyeball with no warning from his still-living coed victim. In fact, eyeball-gore seems to be a pleasant theme, often accompanied by tongue-in-cheek cannibalism. We also get some brutally prolonged beatings-to-death, lots of stabbing, loads of gore, and some gore-slathered sound-editing to really bring it together. Some may say the sloppy-squishy sound effects were overdone. Perhaps…but overdone damned well! Gorehounds will be pleased for sure. I should add that the “falling icicle” death scene was hilariously perfect! The ice skate kill was also pretty damned special. All in all, only the sound editors and special effects folks demonstrated thoughtful approaches to their craft.
Try to ignore that this is a remake of a classic trendsetter and take this for what it is: an 80s-style slasher movie in which gore is celebrated and a shower scene is simply there to deliver bare breasts rather than to convey a sense of vulnerability and “will she die” tension. I had fun with it.
Share this post:
People love Melissa McCarthy. Her groundbreaking work in Bridesmaids made her a bona fide box office star and was a revelation for several reasons. It gave us a larger than life woman who was in charge of her surroundings, embraced her sexuality and loved puppies. She laid the groundwork for Rebel Wilson’s Fat Amy in the sleeper hit Pitch Perfect and she is the only reason Identity Thief made money.
Identity Thief is bad. The critics didn’t like it (20% Rt) and audiences thought it was rotten (58%). However, it collected $135 million at the box office. Nobody seemed to like it yet it swindled the audiences cash over a period of several weeks. Here is how it fared from February 8th-March 10th (35, 27, 14, 10, 6 million). The first week drop off was unprecedented. I recently wrote a piece about correctly predicting word of mouth hits. Identity Thief does not fall into the criteria of any of the films I mentioned. It is mean, scattershot and features Jason Bateman unnecessarily hitting Melissa McCarthy in the face with a guitar. Instead of being nice the characters are archetypes ranging from emasculated, insane, brutish and depressingly sad.
McCarthy works her butt off in the film. She falls, dives, swears, throat punches, runs slowly, cries, has an amazing perm and ends up redeeming herself. However, she is one of the most depressing film characters in recent memory. She is cartoonish to the point where her bones must be filled titanium yet has a fragile psyche due to some childhood trauma and abandonment. She wrecks lives, is desperate for attention and is ultimately redeemed in a cringe worthy manner.
To top off the cartoony realism the plot is absolutely incoherent. You will say What? Huh? When? Who? What? Really? No? Yuck. I will let Roger Ebert explain it.
Thanks to an idiotic premise involving Jon Favreau as the world’s worst boss, Morris Chestnut as Denver’s dumbest cop and John Cho as the world’s worst friend, it’s up to Sandy to make his way to Florida, capture Diana and bring her to Colorado. Then it’s up to the screenwriter to find ways to keep Sandy and Diana on the road together for a series of wacky escapades, when all Sandy has to do is pick up a phone, dial the authorities and say, “Hey, you know that woman who stole my identity and has committed hundreds of felonies? Got her!”
Ebert normally gave movies the benefit of the doubt. In my sleeper hit post Ebert gave Paul Blart: Mall Cop a positive review because he liked the nice characters. Ebert wasn’t an angry reviewer yet he saw through the zaniness of Identity Thief. Intelligence and practicality are sacrificed for throat punches, car chases and “Sandy” jokes.
Why did audiences flock to this film? Why did it hold up so well the second weekend? Box Office mojo explained it’s success like this:
From its clearly articulated, relatable premise to its broadly-appealing leads, the movie feels like it came off some kind of “comedy hit” assembly line, and Universal is reaping major rewards so far.
Essentially, the movie boiled down to people thinking it would be fun. On paper the teaming of Bateman and McCarthy is inspired and worthy of further exploration. Thief reminded me of the soul crushing Due Date. The film had a hot cast (Downey Jr. Galifianakis), was bashed by critics (39%) yet still cleared the 100 million dollar mark. Both of these films instilled faith in the cinema going public that they couldn’t be all that bad.
Alonso Duralde of The Wrap agreed by saying:
“Identity Thief the kind of cast that makes audiences ask, “How bad could it be?” before proceeding to answer that very question.”
Thief’s director Seth Gordon (who best film is still King of Kong) had a similar critically and audience reviled hit with Four Christmases in 2008. The cast was hot at the time (Vince Vaughn, Reese Witherspoon) and those famous people carried the film to $120 million. Four was absolutely soul crushing yet had such an amazing cast people went to watch it. A year later Couples’s Retreat with Bateman, Favreau and Vaughn went on to make $109 million with a abysmal 11% RT score. These movies made money because of the great casts but imagine how much money they would have made if they were good. Also, they hurt the long term marketability of the stars. Nowadays, Vaughn’s comedies are not doing so well with Dilemma, The Watch and The Internship all under performing.
People went to watch Melissa McCarthy do her thing in Identity Thief and instead had their time and money stolen. McCarthy’s latest film The Heat is doing well so all is forgiven. However, in order for McCarthy to retain her box office clout she needs to pay close attention to what made her famous in the first place. Bridesmaids will not be duplicated anytime soon but it did lay out a nice blueprint for success. It put characters first and built the gags from there. A silly character is not funny because they are silly. Characters are funny because you like them.
Don’t watch Identity Thief. Search out The King of Kong: Fistful of Quarters. Cherish Bridesmaids.
Movies, Films & Flix 