- 24,336
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
I'm quite intrigued by The Hunger Games. I does indeed sound like The Running Man - or perhaps Battle Royale crossed with Twilight.
I can promise you Hunger Games has nothing to do with Twilight. Nothing in common. Nothing at all. Much better than the Twilight movies. I am actually confused with how you even thought Hunger Games has anything similar with Twilight.
Oh I see. I would say its MUCH more mature than those. Some truly gory disturbing moments that even shocked me. I cant say much without spoiling it but there were quite a few wow moments for me. I would never have thought of this as a "youth" movie at all. Its sure as heck not a "chick flick".Yeah, i know
I was kind of pointing to the fact that it's based on a series of 'youth' books, in the same way that the Twilight (and Harry Potter) films were.
To be honest, a lot of the movie is depressing and sad. Its crazy what they go through. Again, it kinda has "The Running Man" feel to it.
and we begin with Insidious (2011, directed by James Wan). This is one of the last major films to be run through the hype machine. Id heard a lot about the film long before actually seeing it. The reviews had been fairly mixed, ranging from excellence in horror to bland and unexceptional. James Wan has been fairly hit-and-miss in the past, so this really could have gone either way. On the one hand, he directed the first of the Saw films, along with the film short that preceded it. Now I feel that the original Saw was a good film. Not stellar, but one of the best the franchise has churned out. On the other hand, he also directed Dead Silent, which was just dire.
The first thing to note about Insidious is that its a film of two very different sides. The first half and the second half really dont seem to match up, almost seeming to come from two different films. The first half is very much the more horror-based half. And its done rather well. It plays tricks on you. You start seeing things without being quite sure if theyre there. Its all a little bit dark to begin with. Id liken it a little bit to the first Paranormal Activity in tone. Unfortunately, its also ever so slightly predictable. It doesnt go out of its way to do things differently, but its functional and the plot flows nicely.
That is until the second half, where it suddenly takes a banana-fulled rocket ship to Planet Ridiculous. After a rather bewildering revelation from the stock old woman-whos-also-a-psychic-medium who seems to inhabit every horror film since 1980, it all becomes more sci-fi than horror. Without giving too much away, one of the protagonists has to journey to another realm to find his son. Part of the thrill of the horror genre is the idea (sometimes subconsciously) that it could be real. This element is completely dissolved by the second half, and the demonic forces strike me as more alien than paranormal phenomena. Theres one final twist in the tale, right at the end. Unfortunately, it doesnt take bloody Nostradamus to see this one coming a good 10 minutes before it happens. Theres no real catharsis to the plot, which is disappointing. It ends a little abruptly, although this leaves adequate room for a sequel.
The script is succinctly written, if once again its a tad predictable. But then its a horror film, not a historical romance epic. So concessions must be made. The dialogue is functional, and theres no real jargon to get your head around, so its fine for the casual filmgoer. Theres some great acting on display throughout most of the film, with particularly good turns from Patrick Wilson and Barbara Hershey. I often hate child actors in horror films, and usually Im fairly happy if they get disposed of at some point in the plot, but the kids in Insidious did a fairly good job. A baffling decision was made to put a duo of Ghostbusters style idiots in the cast towards the end of the film, which kind of spoils the mood somewhat, emphasised by their slightly wooden acting and non-existant character development.
In summary, Insidious hasnt lived up to the hype. But it would be unfair to judge it comparatively to the praise heaped upon it. As a standalone horror, you could do worse. Its a fairly entertaining romp if youre no dead-set on a dark, brooding horror right the way through. With hints of Poltergeist and Paranormal Activity but with a lighter tone, Id recommend Insidious as a horror for beginners. One for someone who likes the idea of scary, but is put off if things get a bit too close to home. Dont expect perfection or something different, because youre not going to get it. I think the moral of this story is dont believe everything you hear. Or maybe its watch it while drunk. Either way works for me.
3/5
Enjoyable if you dont take it all too seriously.
You all know the old adage of Never meet your heroes right? Well I have to say, sadly the same can apply to heroes of the film world. The Blair Witch Project (1999, Myrick/Sanchez) was a hero of my film world. I know, I know, it can hardly be called a hero if its taken me 13 years to get round to seeing it. Its really more the effect its had on the film industry thats rather inspirational. It proved that you can still have a hit blockbuster with a 3 megapixel camera and a budget of 50p. Its inspired many a junior director to pick up a camera and give it a go. And that cant be a bad thing. However, I think maybe I set my own standard too high, caving to its own pseudo-legendary status. Surely with such a low budget, theres physically only so much they can do.
The main issue I have, which is both a criticism and a compliment, is that the rather inspired dialogue exists to cover the fact that not a lot happens. The script is really what kept me watching to the end, and it tends to hover between moderately well written and brilliant. This is in no small part due to the fact its all improvised on the spot. Its not too polished, which makes it work for this film and genre. Myrick and Sanchez do a good job of establishing the characters in a short space of time and with limited means. Theres the pushy girl, the stoner and the obnoxious semi-loner. Hardly stock characters, really. Whilst not being the most likeable of casts, you do at least sympathize with them once the horror element of the film sets in. But I digress, back to the point I was making. For a horror, or even if you were to classify this as a thriller, not enough happens. The antagonist is sketchy at best, and for me this just leaves far too many open questions at the end. We never actually see whats stalking our heroes, which is a valid artistic choice. However, with a film like this it just doesnt wrap things up neatly enough. The only evidence that anything at all is out there is that whatever it is leaves neat piles of rocks and sticks nearby wherever the protagonists happen to be. For all we know, they could be gifts, and the Blair Witch could be a lonely girl just seeking acceptance, Silent Hill style. And this puts a huge twist onto the film. Dont get me wrong, I think its great to leave an air of mystery with potentially supernatural beings in horror films (Cloverfield put on a masterclass of that), but theres just no catharsis to this film, it feels unfinished. I suppose you could argue that it was to leave room for the ill-fated sequel that was to follow, but it just didnt work for me.
The video-diary style format is inspired, and really was groundbreaking at the time. This, in a way, saves the film for me. Previously unknown actors (hey, its an independent film) can sometimes over-ham their performances to get noticed, but this is an exception. You can really see the fear in their eyes, and thats incredible for such a low-budget and low-tech film. I think this is due in no small part to the way it was shot. As I am aware, the actors were genuinely the only people on set, and the rest of the production team would tell them where to walk to, and that was it. And then the production crew left creepy Blair Witch calling cards around them as the slept, while they filmed their genuine reactions. It hadnt been done before, and hasnt been done since. It adds an air of realism that few films can match.
In summary, its by no means a bad film. Hardcore horror fans will want to check it out just for its Sacred Cow status, and its not scary enough that the average cinema-goer might be put off. Sadly for me, while the improvised dialogue works wonders in building tension and establishing events, the events themselves are too far apart to really keep momentum going. Oddly, you could remove the idea of the Blair Witch altogether, making it a film about getting lost in the woods, and it probably wouldnt suffer for it. And that says a lot about a film, doesnt it? Im going to end this review on a really douchebag comment, and say that the real enemy isnt the witch. Its themselves.
2.5/5
Groundbreaking, but the game has moved on.
This film kicks the laws of physics square in the tits.
Lets just get that out of the way so its less of a shock later.
The first thing to strike you whilst watching is how it seems to be an almost shot-for-shot copy of the Hostel franchise, particularly the first one. Im not talking similar, Im talking identical. Up to around the 2/3 mark, youd be forgiven for thinking this was the latest instalment of Eli Roths infamous series.
The plot, whilst borrowing heavily, is at least functional. A gang of American jocks take some bad travel advice from a stony-faced-but-pretty eastern European lady, and end up being picked off one by one by a gang of generic horror eastern European villains. Sound familiar? It might well. However, to distinguish itself, Trains plot is eventually decoupled and does a u-turn, with a twist that I actually found to be fairly intriguing. Without giving too much away, it turns out that while yes, our murderous psychopaths are slaughtering unwary travellers, theyre at least doing it for a reason. Whether the reason is morally sound or entirely corrupt is largely left up to our own intuition. This is a stark contrast to the very black-and-white motivators for their Hostel counterparts.
Another part I enjoyed (maybe tolerated is a better word) was the soundtrack. No, it wasnt particularly exciting, but it was atmospheric where it needed to be, and didnt interfere with the dialogue when it didnt need to be. There was no set genre to the non-diegetic, which I thought was a nice touch.
What is entirely unforgivable though, is the lack of thought in places. Plot holes are fine occasionally. Plot chasms are another matter. And there are so many, it just baffles me. For example, none of the irritating teens or their sporting coach bat seem to be particularly bothered that on this mysteriously free train ride, theyre surrounded by the kind of sweaty, filthy, belligerent villains that really wouldnt look out of place working as incompetent henchmen in a Disney movie. Then not long after, these same BLATANT FIENDS demand their passports, and they hand them over without so much as batting an eyelid.
The film is literally filled with this sort of stuff. And this is before weve even started on the biology of this whole situation. The opening scene shows a man being flayed alive. That is fine, I can deal with that. What I cannot deal with however, is the fact that his skin is being peeled off with the neatness and ease with which one might peel a Satsuma. It just doesnt work like that. One of the male leads has his genitalia hacked off and left to bleed to death. Dont worry folks, hes inexplicably back on his feet and in fine condition within 5 minutes.
And then theres the many ways in which Train bends the laws of time, space and physics. The final scene involves our protagonist Alex, facing off against a goliath of a man around a carriage that has been separated from the main train and is motionless on the track. After a fairly haphazard fight scene, another train comes rushing along the tracks, causing Alex to have to stand to one side. But hey, thats okay, because of the stationary carriage has somehow vanished! Like, gone altogether. My guess is that it shuffled off in the background rather than spend another few minutes of screen time in this film. If the uninspiring plot, unlikeable characters and pervading sense of nothingness doesnt put you off, the plot holes certainly should.
Another major issue is the casting. I will grant that the cast do the best with what they have. But the roles are so horribly miscast and the dialogues is so uninspiring that it would make Hollywood legends look like cardboard cutouts. So its no surprise that none of the actors in Train have gone on to brighter things yet, its a major career dampener. The most obvious miscasting is our lead girl, Alex. Played by the talented Thora Birch who dazzled me in 1999s American Beauty, theres no substance to the role. Birch excels in roles that require grace and nuance. Theres none to be found here, Im afraid. She just doesnt have the tough-guy attitude required to play a horror-film heroine. A notable mention has to go to Kavan Reece. In a less-than stellar series of performances from almost all involved, he shines as one of the better ones. The role of Sheldon, like all the others is horribly underdeveloped, but somehow you find yourself sympathising with him more. Maybe its because he gets his junk chopped off.
To be perfectly honest, this one can be wrapped up pretty simply. Train is a film for hardcore slightly silly torture-porn horror fans only. Even then, its pretty tenuous, and I cant really give you a guarantee that youll enjoy it. Id say its probably one to avoid.
2/5
No style, no substance. Just dont.
Did we see the same Jeepers Creepers? It drove a truck, wore a trench coat, had a lair of death that would make Geiger proud, and flew. It chose its victims because every X number of years it had to replace its body parts with new ones, and Justin Long had the perfect eyes. Hence the title being based on the song played throughout the film: "Jeepers creepers, where'd you get those peepers? Jeepers creepers, where'd you get those eyes?"Tom Servo
Tom Servo
