Change Your Image
trinitysitesarah
Reviews
The House of the Devil (2009)
Little gem of atmosphere, setting, slow-build mood
Filmed as a "lost early '80s movie" with such attention to detail that it might actually be a freshly-discovered artifact from a film vault, "House of the Devil" is a little gem of atmosphere, creepy setting, and a mood of slow-building dread. This isn't Michael Bay or "Saw" or "Hostel" -- so if you're demanding high-octane horror, this isn't it.
It's no accident that this film has been compared to early Polanski or "Ringu", and it's no accident that this school of film-making (mood-based horror) provokes outrage and hatred from those who prefer a different type of horror. It's also no accident that word-of-mouth buzz is slowly building for this film from viewers who appreciate atmosphere.
I saw this film yesterday and I'm haunted today by lingering impressions from its dread-soaked mood and eerie setting. Kudos to Ti West and everyone involved in the film including the actors -- there's not a bad performance anywhere. If you love the late '70s-early '80s, or if you love mood-based horror, "House of the Devil" is a creepy treat. I loved it.
The Box (2009)
One of 2009's Top 5 Films
Richard Kelly's "The Box" is a nearly perfect little sci-fi morality tale.
The genius of the film's central premise -- would you sacrifice a stranger's life in exchange for a million dollars? -- is a genius that belongs to renowned author Richard Matheson.
The genius of the film's execution in storytelling belongs to Richard Kelly (although there are some wonderful acting performances, most notably Frank Langella's creepy host).
The story belongs in a long tradition of sci-fi in which mysterious and bizarre otherworldly events, which may be reasonably left unexplained, occur in the service of a theme.
"Theme" is the prize that Richard Kelly is seeking here, not "popcorn plot" -- although many disgruntled IMDb users seem to want the latter and not the former.
"The Box" is a nearly perfect film when you take the film on its own terms. "The Box" is a simple story, well-told, well-directed, and well-acted (with the one possible exception of Cameron Diaz's misplaced accent, which is somewhat redeemed by her good acting late in the film).
If you see "The Box", the less you know about it beforehand, the better. Until the very end, you won't be sure of the outcome -- although what's important here is not the plot but the theme, in the tradition of Rod Serling or Stanley Kubrick, who might have made a very similar film.
Why do so many IMDb reviewers insist upon rewriting yet another description of the entire plot in their review? Why do so many IMDb reviewers insist upon being spoon-fed answers to a film's intentional mysteries & loose-ends? Many of the reviewers compare Richard Kelly to David Lynch, inserting the word "pretentious" for both.
Richard Kelly's "The Box" should be compared to Rod Serling and Stanley Kubrick (yep, I said it), not David Lynch, although their description of Lynch as "pretentious" serves to illuminate what type of films they value.
"The Box" is one of 2009's best films.
JCVD (2008)
The Redeemer
With a tour de force monologue scene that itself makes the film and actor one-of-a-kind, JCVD sets out to "redeem" the action genre with a "metacommentary" that is much more than clever or ironic.
JCVD is a film within the subgenre of "meta-reality-drama" (see "Wes Craven's New Nightmare" as another example). Van Damme plays himself in a flashback cross-cutting fictional narrative about his "real" personal life complicated by a post office heist-gone-wrong that Van Damme stumbles into.
Not an action movie per se, but a semi-comic drama with action elements, JCVD is mainly a showcase for the serious acting chops of Van Damme -- and (surprise) Van Damme gives a performance that is -- yes, believe it -- Oscar-worthy.
Even if you've zero interest in action films, or zero interest in Van Damme, JCVD will surprise you and possibly move you emotionally. But if you're a true action genre aficionado, JCVD is a film you won't want to miss. More than simply offbeat, JCVD offers a critique of comic-book movie violence and a transformative performance from a major action star that separates him from the rest of the pack.
Seagal, Schwarzenegger, Stallone or any of the major action stars could only dream of a film as distinguished and accomplished. JCVD will likely be the best of Van Damme's career.
Casino Royale (2006)
Bourne Again: The Bond Identity
Yes, they had no choice but to get serious about rejuvenating the Bond series: say what you will about Damon's franchise, the DVD sales of "Bourne Identity" were through-the-roof, and Pierce Brosnan's employers had to see the writing on the wall.
Suffice it to say, the New Bond is equally as brutal but not as real-world as the "Bourne" series... Yet the competition is definitely in play: "Casino Royale" is both the best Bond movie since the 1960s, and also the most faithful to its source book since ... maybe ever? Although "Casino Royale" feels slightly too long, it's a minor quibble with such a banquet of what's good about it: an adult relationship with substance (again, forced via competition with "Bourne"), a fantastic foot-chase as good as any car chase (although does anybody else miss the pre-CGI days where stunts really were real?), Craig's acting (best since Sean, believe it) hits the perfect (purist, gritty) tone, some excellent twists... all that's missing is a classic theme song for the ages.
So the question is: what would Ian Fleming think of this new tough, brutal Bond? None of us can honestly answer that question, but for Bond fans, the next Daniel Craig Bond cannot come soon enough.
On a personal note, I can't let go of "Bourne," partially because Bourne is truly real-world, and he's a hunted character as well -- the stakes are always higher for Bourne than for Bond. But I'm hoping that the scriptwriting & directorial craftsmanship stays high for the next Bond, because Bond's an elder statesman of the genre and has a respected place.
I could do without the RFID audience-conditioning bullshit, however.
Silent Hill (2006)
Compares with "Carnival of Souls" (1962 version): Atmosphere, Imagery
I saw this film without knowing it was a video game adaptation. I didn't recognize that it was a VG adaptation until I'd sat through the final credits.
Truly atmospheric little cult gem here. What it lacks in plot, it makes up for in other departments.
List of what works well, in order of success: (1) atmosphere/mood/tone, (2) imagery. What's sufficient: acting, music. If you're looking for anything else, look elsewhere. Someone else's comment here that it's a "Nightmare Drama, not a Horror Film" are exactly accurate, although there are one or two moments of classic horror.
You will find it useful to have no expectations, and a few minor suspensions-of-disbelief for the initial set-up to work.
It's NOT a Romero-level masterpiece, not a landmark/zeitgeist-nailing/cultural-defining moment, but an enjoyable ride nonetheless.
Chavez: Inside the Coup (2003)
Dazzling Roller-Coaster Ride, Best Documentary of 2003
You've never seen anything like it. Once the coup begins, it's the most dazzling, edge-of-your-seat thriller you'll ever see -- even though you know the outcome. And it's all real, because it's a documentary -- amazing.
By the time it was over, it was on my Top 10 list of All Time Great Movies.
Disregard the slobbering right-wing fanatics. Everyone I know who has seen this film gives it the 4-star rating. Even if you don't care about politics or about Venezuelan politics, you will find yourself nerve-racked and -- believe it -- on the edge of your seat.
It's a roller-coaster ride.
Wolf Creek (2005)
No creativity, no surprises, same clichés, waste of time
If there's anything I HATE in a horror movie, it's (1) watching stupid characters make zero-logic decisions and carelessly get themselves killed (2) watching pointless gore without suspense.
"Wolf Creek" starts off promisingly. There's a slow-burning moody first-half buildup. Then I'm looking at my watch for the second half, waiting for the characters to get killed. That's it.
No surprises. No creativity.
Remember, the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" was something no one had ever done before. Same with "Last House On The Left." Same with ... any great horror classic.
Horror Film, like most of film culture (and music) these days is totally bankrupt of ideas. "Wolf Creek" is nothing more than a remake -- a cross between "Hills Have Eyes" and "TCM" (original). Can't they come up with any *beep* original ideas? Better yet, does ANYBODY like watching movies where the characters carelessly make zero-logic decisions while you're yelling at the screen for them to stop? Give me some smart characters in a bloodbath any day. But no more of this *beep*