John Dies At The End Upon seeing the face of Paul Giamatti depicted on the poster for this film, I decided: "Why not?" It's a film adaptation of David Wong's book and the trailer doesn't give too much away, while still grabbing your attention.
So, let's start with my pre-viewing thought: "I wonder how they are going to play with the fact that they tell us 'John' will die at the end, while still keeping the element of suspense the film seems to hint at having!" Those of you who have seen this will know, John does not die at the end. What a waste of a great title. This was the worst thing for me. But now that it's out of the way, I can focus on why this film wasn't all that bad.
Starting the low-budget (which is, unfortunately, frightfully apparent, but at least they try and work off it!) 'flick', we are met with a charming little riddle, although, I reckon, most got it in the first few seconds. This really did set the mood however, a dreary atmosphere of doubt and slight confusion is well-drawn from the books by the adaptation. Following this we saw the duo of practically non-existent actors - surprisingly well cast for the part - fighting supernatural apparitions and such like. The best spots of acting really came from both Clancy Brown (or Victor Kruger as many will know him) and Giamatti, with a surprisingly short but enjoyable cameo (we'll call it) from Kevin Michael Richardson as 'Korrok': the eye thingy; which is really all I can call it without giving anything away.
Now add a drug called 'Soy Sauce' (or 'The Sauce' as it is often referred to) and we have a half-decent film. The exclusion of CGI, for the most part, was welcome due to the film's real reversion to how things used to be done, showing that we can make them like we used to. There were some sections of the film which used CGI and, therefore, I can see why they chose to refrain from it's use; it's no 'Lord of the Rings'.
Attempting to mirror those fun qualities one can find in films like 'The Evil Dead' and 'Faust' (1926) we can see the angle with which the director, Don Coscarelli, attempted to tackle this film, but it really isn't one of his best.
I can't believe I'm saying this again, but, it just did not live up to the book, nor to other Coscarelli films such as 'Phantasm' and 'Bubba Ho-Tep'. Read the book first. Then, if you like, watch the film. It isn't bad but its not great either, nor is it 'one for the experience'. You could most certainly live without watching this film but it isn't one you will regret spending the time to watch.
So, let's start with my pre-viewing thought: "I wonder how they are going to play with the fact that they tell us 'John' will die at the end, while still keeping the element of suspense the film seems to hint at having!" Those of you who have seen this will know, John does not die at the end. What a waste of a great title. This was the worst thing for me. But now that it's out of the way, I can focus on why this film wasn't all that bad.
Starting the low-budget (which is, unfortunately, frightfully apparent, but at least they try and work off it!) 'flick', we are met with a charming little riddle, although, I reckon, most got it in the first few seconds. This really did set the mood however, a dreary atmosphere of doubt and slight confusion is well-drawn from the books by the adaptation. Following this we saw the duo of practically non-existent actors - surprisingly well cast for the part - fighting supernatural apparitions and such like. The best spots of acting really came from both Clancy Brown (or Victor Kruger as many will know him) and Giamatti, with a surprisingly short but enjoyable cameo (we'll call it) from Kevin Michael Richardson as 'Korrok': the eye thingy; which is really all I can call it without giving anything away.
Now add a drug called 'Soy Sauce' (or 'The Sauce' as it is often referred to) and we have a half-decent film. The exclusion of CGI, for the most part, was welcome due to the film's real reversion to how things used to be done, showing that we can make them like we used to. There were some sections of the film which used CGI and, therefore, I can see why they chose to refrain from it's use; it's no 'Lord of the Rings'.
Attempting to mirror those fun qualities one can find in films like 'The Evil Dead' and 'Faust' (1926) we can see the angle with which the director, Don Coscarelli, attempted to tackle this film, but it really isn't one of his best.
I can't believe I'm saying this again, but, it just did not live up to the book, nor to other Coscarelli films such as 'Phantasm' and 'Bubba Ho-Tep'. Read the book first. Then, if you like, watch the film. It isn't bad but its not great either, nor is it 'one for the experience'. You could most certainly live without watching this film but it isn't one you will regret spending the time to watch.