If crime-ridden LA crashed into "Lord of the Rings", this is what you would get. 9 times out of 10, a movie like this would be awful. But this is the 1 time out of 10 that it actually works.
Reviews
10 Reviews
Sinister 2
(2015)
As good or better than the first one
23 August 2015
1. This feverish experience is one of the best horror films of the year.
2. You don't have to see the first movie to see this one, but I highly recommend it. The context of the film won't make a lot of sense without it. And part of the intensity of this movie is because you know the secret, but the people in the movie don't.
3. It follows Deputy So & So after the events of the first film. Obsessed with stopping Bughuul, he comes across a woman with two sons who have unkowingly attracted the pagan deity. While the mother deals with her ex-husband, dead kids appear to one of the boys and show him snuff films in the basement (if the snuff films in the first movie bothered you, you should know that these are worse).
4. As with the first movie, the use of sound in this film is an experience in itself, expertly cutting together music and effects to heighten the hallucinatory nature of what's going on.
5. In a super rare occurrence for a horror film, there is actually a second plot line. I mean, this is like a real movie. While some will be annoyed by the extra story because it takes away from the supernatural stuff, it's a great development that makes the characters real people, so that you actually care what happens to them. It's also a grim reminder that some things in real life are just as scary as a ghost.
6. The movie quickly but cleverly uses an obscure, but actually real, phenomenon known as "numbers stations" to give a greater scope to Bughuul's actions.
7. There are some good jump scares in the movie. But the filmmakers know the difference between a "scary movie" and a "horror movie". By making the film rated R, they gave up some viewers that would have seen it if it were PG-13. They use that harder rating to their full advantage, making this an actual horror film. This movie is NOT for kids.
8. There is a quick, easy-to-miss conversation between two characters that bring up the idea of "aesthetic observation of violence." If you want to get all meta, you can apply that concept to the movie you're watching, and get some uncomfortable insights into the nature of horror itself.
9. If you like your horror movies to be the flash-bang generic type, like "The Conjuring", then this film may not be your thing. But if you want your horror movies to mean something, to stick with you, and even make you genuinely uncomfortable, then you owe it to both yourself and the horror genre to watch this film.
2. You don't have to see the first movie to see this one, but I highly recommend it. The context of the film won't make a lot of sense without it. And part of the intensity of this movie is because you know the secret, but the people in the movie don't.
3. It follows Deputy So & So after the events of the first film. Obsessed with stopping Bughuul, he comes across a woman with two sons who have unkowingly attracted the pagan deity. While the mother deals with her ex-husband, dead kids appear to one of the boys and show him snuff films in the basement (if the snuff films in the first movie bothered you, you should know that these are worse).
4. As with the first movie, the use of sound in this film is an experience in itself, expertly cutting together music and effects to heighten the hallucinatory nature of what's going on.
5. In a super rare occurrence for a horror film, there is actually a second plot line. I mean, this is like a real movie. While some will be annoyed by the extra story because it takes away from the supernatural stuff, it's a great development that makes the characters real people, so that you actually care what happens to them. It's also a grim reminder that some things in real life are just as scary as a ghost.
6. The movie quickly but cleverly uses an obscure, but actually real, phenomenon known as "numbers stations" to give a greater scope to Bughuul's actions.
7. There are some good jump scares in the movie. But the filmmakers know the difference between a "scary movie" and a "horror movie". By making the film rated R, they gave up some viewers that would have seen it if it were PG-13. They use that harder rating to their full advantage, making this an actual horror film. This movie is NOT for kids.
8. There is a quick, easy-to-miss conversation between two characters that bring up the idea of "aesthetic observation of violence." If you want to get all meta, you can apply that concept to the movie you're watching, and get some uncomfortable insights into the nature of horror itself.
9. If you like your horror movies to be the flash-bang generic type, like "The Conjuring", then this film may not be your thing. But if you want your horror movies to mean something, to stick with you, and even make you genuinely uncomfortable, then you owe it to both yourself and the horror genre to watch this film.
we've already found the worst movie of 2014
3 January 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Nine Things about "Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones"
1. They aren't calling this "Paranormal Activity 5" because it's basically a spin-off, not a direct sequel. Although you won't completely understand this movie unless you've seen the others.
2. It's better than "Paranormal Activity 4". But that's not a compliment. Staring at the ceiling is better than "Paranormal Activity 4". This is still one of the worst movies of 2014. When a movie studio releases a movie two days AFTER the holidays, even they know it's crap.
3. This movie is different than the previous installments in that it's not set among rich white people. It's set among poor Latino people (the main character is an 18-year-old boy named Jesse). Other than that, it's basically the same crap.
4. It takes about 30 minutes for anything plot-worthy to happen. Before that, it's mostly a couple of teenage boys screwing around with a video camera. But after they break into a dead woman's apartment, Jesse comes out with a new invisible friend.
5. The invisible friend talks to Jesse through the old Simon electronic game, and catches him in trust falls.
6. The first actual sense of supernatural danger happens about 50 minutes into the movie. The movie lasts 80 minutes. You do the math.
7. Since this is another "found-footage" style movie, it means that 70% of the movie is deathly boring, 10% is super predictable, 10% is a collection of random scenes that make no sense, and 10% is when the characters do something really stupid.
8. When something interesting does happen (like the dog scene), they always cut away before you know what happens. Then they restart the camera back at something boring.
9. The last minute of the film is actually sort of clever, and shows a little bit of creativity. If you remember the first movie, my advice is just to watch the last 60 seconds of this movie and call it good.
1. They aren't calling this "Paranormal Activity 5" because it's basically a spin-off, not a direct sequel. Although you won't completely understand this movie unless you've seen the others.
2. It's better than "Paranormal Activity 4". But that's not a compliment. Staring at the ceiling is better than "Paranormal Activity 4". This is still one of the worst movies of 2014. When a movie studio releases a movie two days AFTER the holidays, even they know it's crap.
3. This movie is different than the previous installments in that it's not set among rich white people. It's set among poor Latino people (the main character is an 18-year-old boy named Jesse). Other than that, it's basically the same crap.
4. It takes about 30 minutes for anything plot-worthy to happen. Before that, it's mostly a couple of teenage boys screwing around with a video camera. But after they break into a dead woman's apartment, Jesse comes out with a new invisible friend.
5. The invisible friend talks to Jesse through the old Simon electronic game, and catches him in trust falls.
6. The first actual sense of supernatural danger happens about 50 minutes into the movie. The movie lasts 80 minutes. You do the math.
7. Since this is another "found-footage" style movie, it means that 70% of the movie is deathly boring, 10% is super predictable, 10% is a collection of random scenes that make no sense, and 10% is when the characters do something really stupid.
8. When something interesting does happen (like the dog scene), they always cut away before you know what happens. Then they restart the camera back at something boring.
9. The last minute of the film is actually sort of clever, and shows a little bit of creativity. If you remember the first movie, my advice is just to watch the last 60 seconds of this movie and call it good.
Fruitvale Station
(2013)
amazingly realized life tapestry
2 August 2013
This is a small character study based on the life of Oscar Grant, a 22-year-old man who was shot at a public transit system in 2009 and became a symbol of injustice, especially of police brutality. If you aren't sure exactly what this incident was about, that's fine. Don't let that stop you from seeing this amazing piece of cinema.
The actual incident was captured on cell phones - some of this footage opens the film.
The movie takes place on New Year's Eve 2008. Oscar is recently out of jail and is trying to make his life work. He has a girlfriend and a daughter, so he is trying extremely hard to stay legitimate and give up his drug-dealing past. But financial and emotional stresses make it difficult for him to stay away from the high-risk, easy money life he had before. As he and his girlfriend make plans to celebrate New Year's Eve in the city, a random decision changes their lives forever.
Part of the power of this film is in how real the characters are. There is almost no violence, no screaming, no scandal. If you are looking for a gritty movie about tough street thugs full of sex, betrayal, and bullet holes, then look elsewhere. This isn't that movie.
The director carefully tries to humanize the incident. He doesn't sensationalize any particular aspect. Yes, Oscar and his friends are black, and racial profiling certainly may have played a part in what happened. But the movie doesn't exploit America's racial tension. Yes, there are characters that deal drugs, but they aren't depicted as violent, greedy thugs. Yes, there are characters that are single mothers, but they aren't bitter welfare queens whose lives are crumbling around them. And yes, most of the people are poor, but they aren't shiftless, lazy bums - they hold jobs and work extra shifts.
The acting in this film is amazing. I completely bought the relationships among the characters, and their daily struggles. They weren't acting their roles, they were inhabiting them. This is especially true of the main actor, Michael B. Jordan. He has had minor roles in a few movies, but is probably more recognized from television than cinema. So he kind of comes out of nowhere for this movie. He is absolutely mesmerizing. To watch him switch from sensitive father to hardened thug and back again is like watching magic. His performance is far and away the best acting I've seen all year. If he doesn't win some kind of award for this role, then there is no justice in the world.
When people become victims of crimes that morph into social issues, the human becomes a victim who then becomes a martyr. Everything gets lost in the hype. This movie pulls everything back down - the martyr is made into a victim who becomes human again. And you find yourself back in real life. Where trivial decisions mix with past mistakes, and suddenly you are at a confluence of forces that you are powerless to stop.
This makes the incident more surprisingly powerful and emotional than any amount of news footage.
The actual incident was captured on cell phones - some of this footage opens the film.
The movie takes place on New Year's Eve 2008. Oscar is recently out of jail and is trying to make his life work. He has a girlfriend and a daughter, so he is trying extremely hard to stay legitimate and give up his drug-dealing past. But financial and emotional stresses make it difficult for him to stay away from the high-risk, easy money life he had before. As he and his girlfriend make plans to celebrate New Year's Eve in the city, a random decision changes their lives forever.
Part of the power of this film is in how real the characters are. There is almost no violence, no screaming, no scandal. If you are looking for a gritty movie about tough street thugs full of sex, betrayal, and bullet holes, then look elsewhere. This isn't that movie.
The director carefully tries to humanize the incident. He doesn't sensationalize any particular aspect. Yes, Oscar and his friends are black, and racial profiling certainly may have played a part in what happened. But the movie doesn't exploit America's racial tension. Yes, there are characters that deal drugs, but they aren't depicted as violent, greedy thugs. Yes, there are characters that are single mothers, but they aren't bitter welfare queens whose lives are crumbling around them. And yes, most of the people are poor, but they aren't shiftless, lazy bums - they hold jobs and work extra shifts.
The acting in this film is amazing. I completely bought the relationships among the characters, and their daily struggles. They weren't acting their roles, they were inhabiting them. This is especially true of the main actor, Michael B. Jordan. He has had minor roles in a few movies, but is probably more recognized from television than cinema. So he kind of comes out of nowhere for this movie. He is absolutely mesmerizing. To watch him switch from sensitive father to hardened thug and back again is like watching magic. His performance is far and away the best acting I've seen all year. If he doesn't win some kind of award for this role, then there is no justice in the world.
When people become victims of crimes that morph into social issues, the human becomes a victim who then becomes a martyr. Everything gets lost in the hype. This movie pulls everything back down - the martyr is made into a victim who becomes human again. And you find yourself back in real life. Where trivial decisions mix with past mistakes, and suddenly you are at a confluence of forces that you are powerless to stop.
This makes the incident more surprisingly powerful and emotional than any amount of news footage.
The Conjuring
(2013)
boring, inconsistent, and funny
1 August 2013
This movie is nothing more than a boring, random collection of "creepy" scenes. No effort is made to connect these scenes with an actual, coherent story. So in honor of that, my review will be a random collection of my thoughts on the film. No effort will be made to turn it into an actual, coherent review.
I get the distinct feeling that the filmmakers made a cynical bet among themselves that they could make the most derivative, stupid, self-contradictory piece of crap, and as long as it looked nice and could make you jump a little, then they would have a hit. Judging from other reviews of this film, they seem to have been correct.
The movie is called "The Conjuring" even though there is no actual conjuring that happens.
The first ten minutes is about a doll. It's too bad the doll has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the movie because that was the best part.
The movie has something to do with a nice family that moves into a nice house in nice 1971 and is terrorized by something supernatural. It might be ghosts of dead children, or ghosts of people that committed suicide, or witches, or demons, or all of them. Since the screenwriters just stole ideas from other movies and threw them into this script, they clearly didn't worry that the movie makes no sense.
This movie even copies "Paranormal Activity" (which was itself a copy of other movies). Is it a coincidence that the same guy directed both of these movies? Basically, "The Conjuring" is really just "Paranormal Activity 1971".
The movie is partly about Ed and Lorraine Warren, who are real people that used to hunt ghosts and demons. They are most famous for being involved in the Amityville Horror, which was discovered to be a hoax (although this movie doesn't tell you that). There is a melodramatic subplot about how they want to retire, but they love each other too much and are too committed to their mission from God, so they can't quit. And they do get to explain the supernatural events to the family with lines like, "Sometimes when you get haunted, it's like steppin in gum—you take it with you."
I learned two things from this "true story" - First, the women in the Salem Witch trials were actually witches, and they worshiped Satan. Second, the Pope has to approve all exorcisms, and he doesn't like to help possessed people if they aren't Catholic.
While watching the movie, I was trying to keep a mental list of stupid things that happened. But there were too many - I literally lost track of them. I even started laughing towards the end, because the characters seemed to have lost any contact with real life and were just running around making the dumbest decisions they possibly could.
There are a couple of jump scares that still worked, and the cinematography was nifty. The groovy 1971 fashion is fun. So it doesn't fail 100% of the time. Just 97% of the time.
I get the distinct feeling that the filmmakers made a cynical bet among themselves that they could make the most derivative, stupid, self-contradictory piece of crap, and as long as it looked nice and could make you jump a little, then they would have a hit. Judging from other reviews of this film, they seem to have been correct.
The movie is called "The Conjuring" even though there is no actual conjuring that happens.
The first ten minutes is about a doll. It's too bad the doll has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the movie because that was the best part.
The movie has something to do with a nice family that moves into a nice house in nice 1971 and is terrorized by something supernatural. It might be ghosts of dead children, or ghosts of people that committed suicide, or witches, or demons, or all of them. Since the screenwriters just stole ideas from other movies and threw them into this script, they clearly didn't worry that the movie makes no sense.
This movie even copies "Paranormal Activity" (which was itself a copy of other movies). Is it a coincidence that the same guy directed both of these movies? Basically, "The Conjuring" is really just "Paranormal Activity 1971".
The movie is partly about Ed and Lorraine Warren, who are real people that used to hunt ghosts and demons. They are most famous for being involved in the Amityville Horror, which was discovered to be a hoax (although this movie doesn't tell you that). There is a melodramatic subplot about how they want to retire, but they love each other too much and are too committed to their mission from God, so they can't quit. And they do get to explain the supernatural events to the family with lines like, "Sometimes when you get haunted, it's like steppin in gum—you take it with you."
I learned two things from this "true story" - First, the women in the Salem Witch trials were actually witches, and they worshiped Satan. Second, the Pope has to approve all exorcisms, and he doesn't like to help possessed people if they aren't Catholic.
While watching the movie, I was trying to keep a mental list of stupid things that happened. But there were too many - I literally lost track of them. I even started laughing towards the end, because the characters seemed to have lost any contact with real life and were just running around making the dumbest decisions they possibly could.
There are a couple of jump scares that still worked, and the cinematography was nifty. The groovy 1971 fashion is fun. So it doesn't fail 100% of the time. Just 97% of the time.
Irreversible
(2002)
viciously beautiful
19 July 2013
Even though he's only made three feature films, director Gaspar Noe has made a name for himself, especially as connected to the New French Extremity movement in cinema. His movies are dark, unsettling, and follow the theme that time destroys everything.
That theme is explicitly stated in "Irreversible", Noe's second film. The plot of this movie is simple: a woman is raped and her boyfriend teams up with her ex-boyfriend to get revenge.
What makes this movie unique is that the sequence of events is shown in reverse order. If you don't recognize that's what's going on, the movie will make absolutely no sense.
We begin at the ending of the story (actually, the movie starts with the end credits), and the final scene is where the story starts. By doing this, the entire theme of the revenge genre is turned on it's head. What would normally be seen as a movie about consequences now becomes a movie more about predestination. You get the impression that the events in the movie had to happen that way - nobody had any choice in the matter. Events and conversations that don't make sense when you see them become all too clear later in the movie, when it's earlier in time. In addition, showing the revenge before the crime forces the audience to consider the morality of the situation from a different perspective - you literally see how revenge doesn't change anything.
The movie is quite controversial for its two violent scenes - the rape and the revenge. Those two scenes are extremely hard to watch.
Noe is also known for loopy camera work, strobe lighting, and low-frequency noises. This is a diabolically effective way to keep the viewer psychologically uncomfortable and disoriented, which makes the impact of the movie all the more intense.
"Irreversible" is a dark, violent, existentially depressing meditation on vulnerability, rage, and the impossibility of fixing things.
That theme is explicitly stated in "Irreversible", Noe's second film. The plot of this movie is simple: a woman is raped and her boyfriend teams up with her ex-boyfriend to get revenge.
What makes this movie unique is that the sequence of events is shown in reverse order. If you don't recognize that's what's going on, the movie will make absolutely no sense.
We begin at the ending of the story (actually, the movie starts with the end credits), and the final scene is where the story starts. By doing this, the entire theme of the revenge genre is turned on it's head. What would normally be seen as a movie about consequences now becomes a movie more about predestination. You get the impression that the events in the movie had to happen that way - nobody had any choice in the matter. Events and conversations that don't make sense when you see them become all too clear later in the movie, when it's earlier in time. In addition, showing the revenge before the crime forces the audience to consider the morality of the situation from a different perspective - you literally see how revenge doesn't change anything.
The movie is quite controversial for its two violent scenes - the rape and the revenge. Those two scenes are extremely hard to watch.
Noe is also known for loopy camera work, strobe lighting, and low-frequency noises. This is a diabolically effective way to keep the viewer psychologically uncomfortable and disoriented, which makes the impact of the movie all the more intense.
"Irreversible" is a dark, violent, existentially depressing meditation on vulnerability, rage, and the impossibility of fixing things.
Pacific Rim
(2013)
A literal block buster with heart
18 July 2013
I can summarize this movie in two words: Bad. Ass.
It is obviously inspired by the classic Japanese animated series "Neon Genesis Evangelion", which was itself influenced by earlier "kaiju movies" like Godzilla. It's about a portal to another dimension that opens up deep in the ocean. Big monsters (appropriately called "kaiju") come out of it and trash coastal cities. The world bands together and makes giant human-controlled robots to go fight them.
And that's really the whole plot.
But that's not the whole movie. There is also a real heart to the story. Several characters have survived trauma and use each other to work through the issues. The movie is genuinely multi-cultural without bothering to point that out. And in the end, it's a lesson about teamwork, also without directly pointing it out.
The monster fights redefine the word "epic". Director Guillermo del Toro has taken to heart the phrase "go big or go home". He doesn't go home. He has no problem destroying entire cities (but he does take care to evacuate them first. This is not a violent bloodbath movie).
Del Toro knows that these stories can get corny, so he preempts it by steering directly into cheesy humor. There's a super geeky subplot about two scientists competing to come up with the best solution, and Ron Perlman gives a great over-the-top performance of a black market trafficker in monster body parts. Everybody knows they're being ridiculous, so it works.
This is not a deep, socially relevant film about existential problems. It's not even all that original. I mean, it's a giant robot fight movie. But by zeroing in on what makes those movies work, Guillermo del Toro has managed to achieve something really rare - to make me feel like a kid again. It made me remember the old Godzilla movies; watching the larger-than-life battles between things that would make me feel so small... but knowing that with the right people around me, I could slay monsters.
It is obviously inspired by the classic Japanese animated series "Neon Genesis Evangelion", which was itself influenced by earlier "kaiju movies" like Godzilla. It's about a portal to another dimension that opens up deep in the ocean. Big monsters (appropriately called "kaiju") come out of it and trash coastal cities. The world bands together and makes giant human-controlled robots to go fight them.
And that's really the whole plot.
But that's not the whole movie. There is also a real heart to the story. Several characters have survived trauma and use each other to work through the issues. The movie is genuinely multi-cultural without bothering to point that out. And in the end, it's a lesson about teamwork, also without directly pointing it out.
The monster fights redefine the word "epic". Director Guillermo del Toro has taken to heart the phrase "go big or go home". He doesn't go home. He has no problem destroying entire cities (but he does take care to evacuate them first. This is not a violent bloodbath movie).
Del Toro knows that these stories can get corny, so he preempts it by steering directly into cheesy humor. There's a super geeky subplot about two scientists competing to come up with the best solution, and Ron Perlman gives a great over-the-top performance of a black market trafficker in monster body parts. Everybody knows they're being ridiculous, so it works.
This is not a deep, socially relevant film about existential problems. It's not even all that original. I mean, it's a giant robot fight movie. But by zeroing in on what makes those movies work, Guillermo del Toro has managed to achieve something really rare - to make me feel like a kid again. It made me remember the old Godzilla movies; watching the larger-than-life battles between things that would make me feel so small... but knowing that with the right people around me, I could slay monsters.
August Underground
(2001 Video)
the worst "exploitation" film of the 21st century
19 February 2013
This is one of the more "famous" exploitation films of the new century. Too bad it sucks.
It's about a psychopath serial killer who is followed by his friend with a bad video camera, filming his every move. There is no plot - we just see Peter, the killer, roam around and act like a jerk and sometimes kill people.
The most shocking part of this movie is the first 15 minutes, when we see a girl who has been tied up and tortured. Her dead boyfriend is in a bathtub in the next room. It's a fairly effective use of gory special effects and a chilling example of the hidden lives of serial killers.
Once they leave their house for the first time, however, the movie falls apart. After that, they just turn into stereotypical frat boys who wander around and do immature pranks and annoy people. The script is stupid and unrealistic. I have never seen a movie go from disturbing to boring quicker than this one.
The acting is terrible. Peter, the main character, has a super annoying laugh that I guess is supposed to be psychotic, but just makes me want to turn the volume down. We never see the guy holding the video camera, which is good because he mostly just makes bad jokes and acts like he has low self-esteem. They are more believable as pathetic losers than hardened killers.
The lesson of this movie is that psychopaths are actually lonely frat boys who are desperate for friends.
It's about a psychopath serial killer who is followed by his friend with a bad video camera, filming his every move. There is no plot - we just see Peter, the killer, roam around and act like a jerk and sometimes kill people.
The most shocking part of this movie is the first 15 minutes, when we see a girl who has been tied up and tortured. Her dead boyfriend is in a bathtub in the next room. It's a fairly effective use of gory special effects and a chilling example of the hidden lives of serial killers.
Once they leave their house for the first time, however, the movie falls apart. After that, they just turn into stereotypical frat boys who wander around and do immature pranks and annoy people. The script is stupid and unrealistic. I have never seen a movie go from disturbing to boring quicker than this one.
The acting is terrible. Peter, the main character, has a super annoying laugh that I guess is supposed to be psychotic, but just makes me want to turn the volume down. We never see the guy holding the video camera, which is good because he mostly just makes bad jokes and acts like he has low self-esteem. They are more believable as pathetic losers than hardened killers.
The lesson of this movie is that psychopaths are actually lonely frat boys who are desperate for friends.
Paranormal Activity
(2007)
Mostly boring, unrealistic. Almost put me to sleep.
25 October 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I really don't understand why this movie apparently hit a nerve with so many people. Even worse, some people seem to believe it was real footage. if you believe that this kind of stuff is possible, this was not a believable version.
If the demon was after her all her life, why does it start with throwing keys on the kitchen floor? What's the point of turning on and off lights, and moving a door six inches? And all of this is while they are sleeping. What does that have to do with anything?
On the parts when he goes looking around the house after hearing scary stuff, why doesn't he turn on the lights? If he's looking for something, why does he only rely on the camera light in a dark house? Stupid.
The psychic/demonologist subplot was funny. The psychic was ready to just run out of the house... but tells them to stay. And is there supposed to be only one demonologist in the whole world that can help them... and he is out of town for a week? LOL!
The filmmakers copied bits and pieces of horror classics (Poltergeist, The Exorcist, The Amityville Horror, and of course The Blair Witch Project) and threw them together in a very boring package.
There were a couple of genuinely creepy scenes, but not until the last half-hour. Before that was a whole lot of waiting around, getting bored. Unless lights turning off and on, chandeliers shaking, and staring at sleeping people is scary to you.
If the demon was after her all her life, why does it start with throwing keys on the kitchen floor? What's the point of turning on and off lights, and moving a door six inches? And all of this is while they are sleeping. What does that have to do with anything?
On the parts when he goes looking around the house after hearing scary stuff, why doesn't he turn on the lights? If he's looking for something, why does he only rely on the camera light in a dark house? Stupid.
The psychic/demonologist subplot was funny. The psychic was ready to just run out of the house... but tells them to stay. And is there supposed to be only one demonologist in the whole world that can help them... and he is out of town for a week? LOL!
The filmmakers copied bits and pieces of horror classics (Poltergeist, The Exorcist, The Amityville Horror, and of course The Blair Witch Project) and threw them together in a very boring package.
There were a couple of genuinely creepy scenes, but not until the last half-hour. Before that was a whole lot of waiting around, getting bored. Unless lights turning off and on, chandeliers shaking, and staring at sleeping people is scary to you.
Alexander
(2004)
complex, passionate masterpiece
15 November 2004
This is one of those movies that people will either love or hate. People expecting the Oliver Stone of "Natural Born Killers" will hate this film. People without patience or a certain level of intelligence will hate this film.
"Alexander" is an intelligent, complicated epic about a very complicated man. And Stone does great justice to the topic. The plot is subtle and intriguing. The visuals are enchanting; the battle scenes are epic and ferocious. The passionate love story between Alexander and Hephaistion - played wonderfully by Jared Leto - was humane and romantic (oh, and homophobes will be quite alarmed by the dignity and acceptance afforded same-sex relationships in this film). The cast worked surprisingly well together.
Sure, there are times when the film becomes a little pretentious - it is an Oliver Stone film, after all. And it is very long, being a full three hours; we could have used an intermission.
But those are minor quibbles to what is otherwise one of the best movies of the year.
"Alexander" is an intelligent, complicated epic about a very complicated man. And Stone does great justice to the topic. The plot is subtle and intriguing. The visuals are enchanting; the battle scenes are epic and ferocious. The passionate love story between Alexander and Hephaistion - played wonderfully by Jared Leto - was humane and romantic (oh, and homophobes will be quite alarmed by the dignity and acceptance afforded same-sex relationships in this film). The cast worked surprisingly well together.
Sure, there are times when the film becomes a little pretentious - it is an Oliver Stone film, after all. And it is very long, being a full three hours; we could have used an intermission.
But those are minor quibbles to what is otherwise one of the best movies of the year.
Tell Your Friends