Change Your Image
IndiaBennett
Reviews
The Mothman Prophecies (2002)
Intriguing Subject Matter, But...
I really feel that Mark Pellington took a huge step backwards with this film. The specificity that he showed in Arlington Road; the suspense, the slow build and the building of the characters was kind of thrown by the wayside here. I suppose that has as much to do with screenplay as it does with anything but as the director he's the final guy that takes those words and commits them to film, so I still hold him accountable.
I did however find this movie interesting. I had never heard of the Mothman or of the incident that took place in Pleasant Point. The fact that it was based on a true story was what really intrigued me and this managed to cancel out alot of the flaws I was finding in the film. Richard Gere gave a decent performance but this is not one of his breakout roles by any means. Laura Linney and Will Patton were both very believable and added validity to the supposed unnatural phenomenon encompassing the town.
Not an A List Movie, but still worth the time to watch. You'll come away intrigued and wondering if the Mothman is just folklore or another one of those things that most of us just don't realize is among us.
Dragonfly (2002)
Missed the Mark, but not without redemption
I find it strange that everyone wants to bash this film on the basis that it mimics or resembles The Mothman Prophecies, Ghost and/or The Sixth Sense. The only reason to be let down by a film is to go into it expecting the same scenario (only done better) than the previous film one has seen. I, myself, prefer to see each film as a separate entity and weigh it not on what another film chose to do, but weigh it on it's own merits of what the particular film I'm watching did by it's own volition. That being said, I still find a fair amount of fault in the film - but not because of the above films. No, where this film falters is entirely it's own fault and it's own creation.
First off, it's imperative that the first ten minutes of a film rock. You don't have to be a film director to know that. That small window is when you either hook your audience, lose them, or let them be indifferent - which is probably the worst because you spend the next hour plus trying to create suspension of disbelief. In my opinion, this is the first place that Dragonfly sputtered. I don't want to be watching little vignettes, intercut with credits for the first 2 to 3 minutes. I mean, I was like "come on, you've got to be kidding me, they're not still rolling titles at this point." Unfortunately, they were. Secondly, it's too rushed an attempt to have these scenes between Costner and his wife within this short time period with the music way over the whole thing and the producers, etc. names coming up in between to break any sort of emotional impact or continuity that the beginning had to offer. I found the opening to be weak and choppy.
I also don't think it's a good sign when it takes you 35 minutes to actually get into a film. And that's approximately how long it took for the director to get me back. The saving grace that helped do so was certainly not Costner or his grief or his friends, but actually the children - one of the saving graces of this movie. It's hard to resist the innocence of a child, especially when the child seems to be so at home in front of the camera. Both boys were good, but especially the young actor that play Jeffrey. He was the catalyst for my starting to become empathetic and starting to wonder what is up there, how much is there that we don't acknowledge or see. It was through Jeffrey and Ben and Sister Madelaine (Linda Hunt's one scene in the film) that I started to wonder about faith and invest some of my emotion in the story. That being said, if I had to say that I was investing my emotion in one of the two central characters, I would have to say that the kids made me invest in Emily - which isn't the best sign of what Costner was doing on screen because regardless of whether he was stoic from grief or not, one still should have felt something for him and usually if an actor is doing their job right, that naturally happens. I found Costner instead to appear to be mailing it in in almost every scene of the film - I did not believe his commitment nor his need. Kathy Bates gave a solid performance but was under used. The cinematographer never seemed to feel the need to come in on her close enough to let her power as an actress reach it's full level. It would have been nice to see them use her to her full potential because it would only have given more weight to the film and helped boost Costner's character up a dimension. Another area in which the film sputtered.
All of the above being said, I didn't massacre the film when I voted for it because I did like the elements of belief, the beauty of what is not known except by those that have faith, and by the very end (although I saw it coming from the time he unpacked the package his wife had ordered). I also saved off on hacking it up because of the performances by Robert Bailey Jr. (Jeffrey), Jacob Smith (Ben) and Kathy Bates and Linda Hunt. I believe the writers had a good idea, but what came out on the screen looked about as polished and flawless as a rough draft, so all good intentions aside, it just didn't add up in the end. Too bad, because this film could have been it's own thing.
And by the way, just because two movies have titles containing insect names, does not mean that they're supposed to be compared, nor that they're telling the same story.
A 6 out of 10 for trying. Just be patient for the first half hour if you're curious enough to watch.