Change Your Image
nicchang
I'm available more on Letterboxd (https://letterboxd.com/nic101/) than I am at IMDb.
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Âya to majo (2020)
Studio Ghibli, WHY?!?!?!
What on earth happened here? Earwig and the Witch is easily Studio Ghibli's worst film yet. When I saw the first images of the film and got a glimpse at the 3D CGI animation, I was alarmed, but hey they've made such great and touching films, how bad can it be?
Except it is really bad. Earwig and the Witch is full of so many misguided creative decisions that I'm in disbelief this was made by Studio Ghibli... it lacks their charm and the end result feels like a studio cash grab. Handdrawn animation will always be superior over 3D CGI, and while I didn't hate the animation style of Earwig and the Witch, it doesn't suit the overall tone and it looks so unnatural that it's completely distracting. The character models look out of place rather than charming. When the credits played, it showed hand-drawn images of the characters and some scenarios, and wow Earwig and the Witch would've looked much better if they used that style.
But fixing the animation won't fix the awful writing. What an absolute mess of a narrative. There seems to be interesting narrative threads set up in the beginning and I thought, "hey maybe this'll be ok!" But afterwards, the film forgets about its ideas and it's clueless over what it wants to do with the plot, so it meanders and sticks to an extremely limited number of locations. Because of the limited scope of Earwig and the Witch, it makes the decision to use CGI animation much more questionable, because as a result, this style feels rarely experimented. Back to the writing, most of the humour misses the mark, the tone isn't charming and the characters are thoroughly unlikeable. EVEN Earwig is a poor role model, since she's determined to get what she wants and I found her to be a brat. Very little happens in the plot and consequently, Earwig and the Witch becomes boring and I have to wonder, what was director Goro Miyazaki aiming for here? Why did he decide to experiment with CGI here? What did he want to say about the storyline? What were his overall goals? His direction feels unclear and unfortunately, it's nowhere near as interesting as Hayao Miyazaki's skilful direction.
But what makes Earwig and the Witch a waste of time is how it ends. An ending can make or break a film, and Earwig and the Witch's ending breaks the film completely to the point that I am badly tempted to lower my score much, MUCH further. The entire film feels like one first half that fails to sufficiently develop the narrative, then the last 5 minutes suddenly skips forward and I feel like I missed out on some crucial points? But then, something finally interesting happens and just as the plot is about to start and pick up... THE FILM STOPS. It's an ending so cheap that it makes me feel cheated because I didn't get anything interesting or thoughtful out of the entire experience. At the very least this should've been a TV pilot because there are so many interesting elements that the film can't be bothered to explore. I didn't hate Earwig and the Witch, since I liked the opening scene, some of the music and sound design are awesome, there are a few fun moments, and the Japanese voice acting is good for what it does. But the more I think about Earwig and the Witch, the worse it gets. What a crushing disappointment...
Plot and Characters (3/10)
Presentation and Direction (3/10)
Voice acting (7/10)
Script (3/10)
Setting/Locations (5/10)
Tone (4/10)
Animation (4/10)
Sound/Music (8/10)
Editing (3/10)
Pacing/Length (1/10)
Score: 41/100.
LIKES:
+Some fun moments
+Good music and sound design
+Solid voice acting
DISLIKES:
-Miyazaki's unclear direction
-Frustratingly limited settings
-Distracting CGI animation
-Unfocused narrative, unlikeable characters
-Script lacks charm
-Lack of a resolution
Wrong Turn (2021)
A new, messy turn for the franchise
Any fan who's expecting Three-Finger, hillbilly cannibals and elements of the original films is going to be straight up disappointed with the Wrong Turn reboot. Those who are open to see the other turn this film makes... well... that is not easy to answer. Because Wrong Turn (2021) works better as a standalone film than an actual reboot.
Mike P. Nelson's Wrong Turn is a huge improvement over the original sequels (although Dead End remains superior). It abandons the cheesy humour of the original films and it wants to be lean, mean and genuinely scary this time. It has new ideas that it wants to work with, especially when it comes to the themes of colonialism, self-determinism and society, and since Nelson understands how familiar (but also beautiful) the setup is, he changes gears to introduce a compelling new setting in an attempt to create new lore for the Wrong Turn franchise. He has material to work with, he can build some competent tension and he doesn't shy away from the practical gore. The performances are also convincing and their fear feels genuine, with Charlotte Vega making the most out of her sympathetic performance and Matthew Modine turning in a likeable performance. Everyone else doesn't have too much material, but their acting sufficiently delivers.
There's so much that works in Wrong Turn but there's also plenty of flaws that disappoint. It has some of the messiest writing of the year (so far), especially when it comes to the narrative. It starts off fast, but before it reaches the halfway point, the pacing slows down significantly and the film turns into a bore. By becoming a bit too reliant on the narrative switches, this causes the editing of the story to suffer. Like the previous films, Wrong Turn offers very little insight into the characters and when they're being hunted or killed off, it conveys little impact. The worst offender is that while Wrong Turn has new, interesting ideas in mind, the execution comes across as hollow. There's no real depth or focus on the social commentary, which the original films have never been about, and the ambition behind this is mishandled. The tone also lacks consistency, as it initially acts as a straightforward slasher film, then it descends into the bizarreness and the third act makes the film feel slightly action-orientated, with a conclusion that I found to be jarringly silly. The tonal inconsistencies make Wrong Turn feel like three different movies that never truly come together as a whole and it butchers the overall atmospheric feel.
The cinematography of Wrong Turn is nice... when the camerawork isn't shaking during particularly suspenseful moments. That, combined with an editing reliance on jumpcuts and a few instances of vague lighting, can make some of the action difficult to see. I do dig the musical score and sound design, especially in the end credits. Wrong Turn could've been far worse than the average January movie release and it deserves credit for effectively presenting some ambitious ideas. I don't find the end result to be confusing, it's a rather clichéd and illogical mess that isn't sure how to handle its narrative, tone, pace and scares, and while it promises to lead the franchise into the right direction, Wrong Turn (2021) just doesn't get there.
Plot and Characters (4/10)
Presentation and Direction (6/10)
Acting (7/10)
Script (4/10)
Setting/Locations (7/10)
Tone/Atmosphere (4/10)
Cinematography/Visuals (5/10)
Sound/Music (7/10)
Editing (3/10)
Pacing/Length (4/10)
Score: 51/100.
LIKES:
+Mike P. Nelson's decent direction
+Believable performances
+Intriguing setting
+Some nice cinematography and music
+Effective moments of tension
DISLIKES:
-Disruptive narrative switches
-Jumbled tone and pace
-Some poorly executed scares
-Messy editing and cinematography during action
-Poorly written characters
Long Story Short (2021)
Long Story Short's existentialism is squandered by predictable plotting and safe direction that brings little depth to its ideas.
On paper, the concept of Long Story Short feels unique and unusually existential for a romantic comedy and there are glimpses of genuine, thoughtful emotion to be found in the film's more dramatic moments. The idea that years of your life could suddenly turn into minutes is terrifying and also heartbreaking since you're getting closer to death and you're missing out on life, yet I can see the comedy in this premise that Long Story Short aims for, and its ambitions have to be admired. It also has a sense of sweetness that, unfortunately, feels too familiar and turns Long Story Short into a frustratingly predictable plot.
This film looks and feels generic. There is rarely anything special about the execution, even when we move forward in time, and I could not buy some of the character behaviours at all. There is a lot Long Story Short could've done to bring its premise to mind-blowing complexities, and early on, I considered the film being a potential allegory of mental illness or the search for meaning in life, yet those interpretations don't come to fruition very well. Its message is clear in that you only live once, so you need to make the most out of every second you live in and Long Story Short uses Teddy's (Rafe Spall) storyline to show the horrors of losing time, yet its messaging borders on preachy and eventually tiring.
Undoubtedly, the acting is the best aspect of Long Story Short. Rafe Spall and Zahra Newman deliver strong performances and their chemistry brought their roles to life. As uninteresting as their characters were, I could believe they were a couple. The supporting cast also give out solid performances and Noni Hazlehurst, a legendary veteran actress in Australia, is phenomenal with the screentime she gets. When Hazlehurst has her monologue towards the end, I found her characterisation more intriguing than the others. In that regard, I wasn't invested in the character work, despite how likeable the performances were, and I can't recall interesting details about them.
I'm almost convinced Long Story Short was shot amidst the COVID-19 pandemic (it was actually filmed in late 2019), because, aside from an opening scene at a crowded party, the most prominent locations are the characters' houses, a beach and a graveyard. The small number of settings gives the film a limited scope and the low-budget filmmaking is evident, which is never bad, but it's that when Teddy is realising how fast time is going by, the world doesn't seem to change within 10 years and it's another sign that screams unfulfilled potential. Just like the writing, very little about Long Story Short stands out technically. Some of the editing is poor, the cinematography is competent yet looks flat and the modern music choices don't fit well with the film, making it feel cheesy and saccharine, and its tonal balances are consequently rough. While Long Story Short does have some humour, most of its jokes fall flat, and barely anyone in my screening laughed.
The pacing mostly fits Long Story Short and helps the time pass, so it didn't drag on. The film's strongest moments are in its most emotional, one is when Teddy discovers some devastating news and, questionable directing aside, Spall's acting sends the impact across. It's when the film attempts to get existential about time and living that it shines. But all of that is completely reversed in an ending that reminded me of Click and if you remember that film, it is impossible not to correctly guess the ending of Long Story Short. But the forced feel-good conclusion ruins the bare existential depths and emotional impact prior to that, and it doesn't feel earned at all. I've never been a fan of romantic comedies and Long Story Short, unfortunately, did little to change that. I can see this resonating with most audiences nevertheless and there's several opportunities for the film to philosophically explore time, love and loss to reach greatness, but in my opinion, Long Story Short simply doesn't take full advantage of its concepts.
Plot and Characters (4/10)
Presentation and Direction (4/10)
Acting (8/10)
Script (4/10)
Setting/Locations (4/10)
Tone (5/10)
Cinematography/Visuals (5/10)
Sound/Music (4/10)
Editing (4/10)
Pacing/Length (6/10)
Score: 48/100.
LIKES:
+Rafe Spall, Zahra Newman and Noni Hazlehurst
+Some moments of genuine emotion
+Existential concept is promising
+Solid pacing allows the time to pass
DISLIKES:
-Tonal imbalances between flat humour and drama
-Generic direction of unique concept
-Off-putting music choices and editing
-Limited settings
-Uninteresting characters and writing
-Safe, clichéd ending completely removes the emotional impact
Emelie (2015)
Disturbing concept, dumb execution.
Emelie didn't click for me at all. It's an amazing concept, but what follows is so frustrating and infuriating that it makes you want to shake your head. There are some genuinely disturbing moments and I have to applaud Emelie for trying to capture suspense and do something different, but the writing is another story. The characters are dumb, especially the children, and Emelie's actions to psychologically traumatise the children are more head-scratching than they are truly shocking. And it's worsened when her motivations are revealed, making it one of the dumbest plot twists I've seen in a long time. It makes you ask what's the point in all of this and how does this progress the plot?
Emelie doesn't just suffer from bad writing... the direction is also a massive disappointment and the tension feels misguided. The bland nature of the cinematography doesn't become clear until towards the end, where we get to see some REALLY bad editing and lighting, and anything about the music and the atmosphere didn't do wonders for me. But any buildup of suspense is completely shattered by a safe finale, which turns Emelie into a forgettable thriller and offers no psychological insights to justify any of the film's creative decisions. This got an 88% rating on Rotten Tomatoes? Really??? I'd understand that if they involved someone like Mike Flanagan, who can turn ANYTHING into gold, and if this material was in the right hands, we'd be up for something truly disturbing, but instead Emelie becomes a sorry excuse of a film. At least Sarah Bolger has an impressive performance that carries the entire film on her back. It's a shame she doesn't get much help from everyone else involved in Emelie.
Also, I really hope the child actors were okay during production. Because if they were exposed like the child characters were in this film, then that's not okay.
Plot and Characters (2/10)
Presentation and Direction (4/10)
Acting (5/10)
Script (2/10)
Setting/Locations (5/10)
Tone/Atmosphere (5/10)
Cinematography/Visuals (4/10)
Sound/Music (5/10)
Editing (3/10)
Pacing/Length (4/10)
Score: 39/100.
LIKES:
+Sarah Bolger
+Some effective suspense
+Competent setting and sound
DISLIKES:
-Dumb, nonsensical character motivations
-Writing crams in poor dialogue and twists
-Bland performances
-Infuriatingly safe finale ruins all buildup
-Poorly directed pace
-Bad cinematography and editing
Locked Down (2021)
Did anyone ask for this movie to be made?
The answer to that is NO and Locked Down is bound to be forgotten by the time COVID-19 finally passes.
To get the positives out of the way, the chemistry between Anne Hathaway and Chiwetel Ejiofor made Locked Down incredibly watchable and they commit to their roles with effort, regardless of the bland nature of the script. It's admirable to see Locked Down aim for originality as it tries to mix a relationship drama, a pandemic setting and a heist plot together, so that deserves credit. While the setting is timely, the locations are portrayed fairly well, and ultimately, the low-budget filmmaking and gimmicks are more interesting to think about rather than watch Locked Down, because this was an opportunity for everyone involved to flex off how fast they can make a film.
Locked Down is one of the more boring and unremarkable films of the decade. I can't recall a time where I laughed and the arguments and baggage between the unlikeable lead characters felt more annoying than emotional. Any dramatic stakes or sense of tension are set up poorly and the lack of character investment led to a spectacular anticlimax. For no good reason, Locked Down drags itself to an overlong 118-minute runtime and the sluggish pace may cause streaming viewers to switch to another programme. Because it doesn't have anything interesting or innovative to say, there's little effort in not just the writing, but also the bland musical score, flat cinematography and terrible editing. Doug Liman doesn't do anything intriguing in his direction and if anything, Locked Down feels like a corporate assignment he needed to do from HBO Max. But hey, I guess he and everyone involved had something to do rather than bore themselves to death during COVID-19. And they made this movie in less than three months, so... congrats?
Plot and Characters (2/10)
Presentation and Direction (2/10)
Acting (7/10)
Script (2/10)
Setting/Locations (7/10)
Tone (2/10)
Cinematography/Visuals (4/10)
Sound/Music (4/10)
Editing (2/10)
Pacing/Length (2/10)
Score: 34/100.
LIKES:
+Attempts at originality
+Hathaway and Ejiofor
+Timely, relatable setting
DISLIKES:
-Empty plotting fails to justify film's existence
-Poor humour and emotional drama
-Unlikeable characters
-Self-indulgent pace and runtime
-Liman's unengaging direction
-Flat cinematography and music
The Rental (2020)
A solid directorial debut from Dave Franco that goes nowhere
The Rental is far from being a bad film. If anything, it proves that Dave Franco can direct, especially when it comes to horror. While there's a couple of jumpscares I recall, Franco is never reliant on that loud jumpscare sting and wisely opts to develop a moody atmosphere. This is a beautiful film to look at, and despite the painfully familiar setting, the production values allow the locations to shine and develop a buildup of tension to get you invested in The Rental. With a nice soundtrack, some smart editing choices and terrific performances, the first act makes you believe you're in for a compelling character study and I have to compliment Franco's attempts to build character work. Unfortunately, the characters are never sympathetic to start off with and if the script made them bearable and more complex, it would've helped build a shocking impact.
As the second act transitions into horror territory (which wasn't made clear in the first act), The Rental starts to become unsettling and creates questions to keep audiences guessing. It takes a while to get to that sweet tension, and just when it seems The Rental is really picking up... we have massive third act issues. Understandably, the characters make stupid decisions and it's the problems and distrust in their relationships that help create tension, but while The Rental makes the most out of its atmosphere, it's not a substitute for storytelling. As such, the script fails to create clues revolving around these questions, misplaces some humour in the more serious scenes and the ambiguity feels unearned. It's also lacking in originality to bring something new to the table and the ending just gave me The Open House vibes. That's not good.
Granted, there's much more talented and competent filmmaking on display here. There are genuinely creepy sequences that had me gasping and there's a lot I liked in the style to make me appreciate Dave Franco's directorial debut, but the pacing drags itself out to something meaningless and the story needed one major refinement to fully achieve its potential.
Plot and Characters (4/10)
Presentation and Direction (7/10)
Acting (8/10)
Script (5/10)
Setting/Locations (7/10)
Tone/Atmosphere (7/10)
Cinematography/Visuals (8/10)
Sound/Music (7/10)
Editing (6/10)
Pacing/Length (5/10)
Score: 64/100.
LIKES:
+Dave Franco's moody direction
+Believable lead performances
+Engaging locations
+Strong, creepy atmosphere
+Beautiful cinematography and score
DISLIKES:
-Pace keeps meandering to nothing
-Third act makes the story pointless
-Characters are difficult to care about
-Odd writing choices
The Girl in the Photographs (2015)
A poor tribute to Wes Craven that also wastes the audience's time.
Osgood Perkins, what on earth happened with the script? Wes Craven (RIP), why did you become the executive producer behind this movie? The Girl in the Photographs has an interesting premise (are the photographs real or staged?) and it is immediately spoiled in the opening sequence. Just as the second act begins, the killers are revealed and the film not only gives away too many information at once but doesn't clarify their true motivations, and the pace becomes sluggish and lame as a result. None of the characters are worth caring about and The Girl in the Photographs isn't attempting to craft a mystery or any psychological thrills at all. It feels like a nothing movie.
The writing isn't just the worst part - The Girl in the Photographs suffers from shoddy technical elements. The cinematography is overlit and poorly thought out, the sound design is amateurish, with some terrible background music, excessively questionable editing and appalling direction that gives the movie the unintentional feel of a student project. Some performances are staggeringly embarrassing and while I like Kal Penn, he's forced to deliver some cringeworthy and painful humour that made the viewing experience unbearable. It's a movie so aggressively lazy, boring and pointless that even writing this review is a waste of energy.
The only positives I can think of? There's good practical gore, one sequence felt particularly atmospheric and creepy, and I found the final shot OK, even though the ending made The Girl in the Photographs feel like a complete waste of time. The real takeaway I could get from the first five minutes is that if you decide to go home to study rather than stay with your friend to watch more movies, then you're likely going to get murdered. If you read this entire review, I apologise for making you waste a minute of your life.
Plot and Characters (1/10)
Presentation and Direction (1/10)
Acting (3/10)
Script (1/10)
Setting/Locations (3/10)
Tone/Atmosphere (3/10)
Cinematography/Visuals (3/10)
Sound/Music (3/10)
Editing (2/10)
Pacing/Length (1/10)
Score: 21/100.
LIKES:
+Some creepy moments and gore
DISLIKES:
-Uneventful, pointless plotting with unlikeable characters
-Lack of mystery and intrigue
-Amateurish cinematography and sound
-Embarrassing performances
-Painfully boring pacing
High Ground (2020)
A gritty Australian thriller that doesn't fully hit the mark.
High Ground is going to be inevitably compared to Jennifer Kent's The Nightingale, but both films are ultimately distinguishable. What's clear about High Ground is that it's no easy watch at all. It's a confronting look at post-colonial Australia, the inherent racism and corruption in the Australian law enforcement, and the atrocities committed against Aboriginal Australian tribes. It's important that we reflect on the horrors of our history to learn from our mistakes, so I'm glad that High Ground has a heightened focus on the Indigenous Australian perspective and received a wide release. It's a film that's certainly angry, but it also has important intentions and themes in mind, reminding us how violence begets violence and shows us the consequences of cultural division.
As such, High Ground strives with authenticity and grit. It has excellent acting from first-time performers Jacob Junior Nayinggul, Witiyana Marika and Esmerelda Marimowa, and it's great to see Indigenous Australian representation. There's also equally strong performances from Simon Baker, Callan Mulvey and Jack Thompson, and while Caren Pistorius and Ryan Corr do their best, they are given little material to shine. Andrew Commis's cinematography is spectacular, which highlights the beauty and harsh nature of the Northern Territory, and the decision to include a fully Aboriginal soundtrack is smart. From graceful direction to handsome production values, everyone involved in High Ground worked hard to create a strong representation of Aboriginal culture and it's what shines most in this film.
High Ground's themes were working well for me and I was invested in the buildup... until the last 20 minutes. That's where the tension fizzled out, as the writing lost track of logic, failed to utilise the importance of its character roles and muddled the film's thematic depths to the point that it rubbed me off the wrong way. While I'm starting to see the intentions behind the ending, its sense of incompleteness and narrowness just doesn't sit right and undermines the strengths of High Ground. It was where I realised how much I didn't care about the shallow supporting character work, it messed up the slow burn and there was also questionable editing. It's an ending I found to be so disappointing that it almost ruined the film. Don't get me wrong, High Ground is one of the better Australian films out there that has good intentions in mind and its authenticity and representation are enough to warrant a watch. It has enough to fuel some much-needed conversations in our Australian society, but these could've been driven greatly by a stronger impact, which High Ground doesn't fully reach.
Plot and Characters (5/10)
Presentation and Direction (7/10)
Acting (9/10)
Script (4/10)
Setting/Locations (9/10)
Tone (8/10)
Cinematography/Visuals (8/10)
Sound/Music (9/10)
Editing (5/10)
Pacing/Length (6/10)
Score: 70/100.
LIKES:
+Authentic portrayal of Aboriginal culture
+Overall powerful presentation
+Brilliant performances
+Beautiful, harsh locations
+Stunning cinematography
+Realistic sound design, great music choices
+Gritty, bleak tone that provokes the film's themes
DISLIKES:
-Disappointing conclusion almost undoes everything
-Abrupt, distracting editing
-Some shallow character work
Occupation: Rainfall (2020)
Occupation: Rainfall shows what's wrong with modern blockbusters.
I saw Raiders of the Lost Ark on the big screen and it was one of the most glorious and spectacular cinematic experiences in my lifetime. To see these classics on the big screen just makes me happy and it's one of the greatest and most finely executed blockbusters that never gets old. Almost immediately after that, I watched Occupation: Rainfall... it became a reminder as to why I'm frustrated by today's modern blockbusters.
The only thing that's worth complimenting about Occupation: Rainfall is that it's an Australian effort to make a regional blockbuster and I'm interested to know the budget and filmmaking process behind the film. There's clearly a larger budget than the first film and Occupation: Rainfall presents itself as an ambitious sequel so it's going all out with what it has and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't impressed by the overall efforts... but crikey, it's about as dumb and irritating as a Hollywood blockbuster, and just because it's a bigger film doesn't mean it's better.
Occupation: Rainfall is visually unpleasant viewing from start to finish. It wants to be a visual spectacle, but it suffers largely from an overabundance of terrible CGI, poor lighting and lens flares, and noticeable green screen. Accompanied by a generic score and overwhelmingly loud sound design that can make dialogue incomprehensible, it's a technical mess. It also has editing so irritating that it gave me Resident Evil: The Final Chapter flashbacks, particularly in one action sequence towards the climax. The action does have entertainment value and I did enjoy it... whenever it was clear and comprehensible (that was rare) and I had more fun counting the jumpcuts in my mind.
While Occupation: Rainfall was never going to be great story-wise, it's also boring. Some of the dialogue is awful, the characterisations feel thin and the storytelling reeks of a generic nature, but where the writing tremendously fails is in its attempts to craft emotion. The emotional beats felt like unearned attempts to create audience investment and at the same time, it awkwardly injects comic relief that proves more to be distracting than unfunny, causing Occupation: Rainfall to suffer from tonal inconsistencies. Most of the performances fall flat to the point of being forgettable, but I was especially disappointed to see Jason Isaacs wasted in a terrible voice role and Ken Jeong deserves better comic material than what he's given. It's a blockbuster full of so many sci-fi clichés and ill-judged decisions that it led me to wonder how this got made. And knowing that the first movie played at only 16 cinemas and made $35,111 from a $6 million budget, it seems a third movie will be inevitably greenlit. And that's hinted by the atrocious cliffhanger ending, which is desperate to create a new Australian film franchise and go Full Hollywood on us.
Watching movies like Occupation: Rainfall mostly shows what's wrong with modern blockbusters. While I'll admit I'm impressed by the production values, some of the action and the overall ambition put into the direction, they all led to a safe and painfully generic end result that doesn't have much heart and it fails when it comes to both the technical and storytelling elements.
Plot and Characters (2/10)
Presentation and Direction (4/10)
Acting (4/10)
Script (2/10)
Setting/Locations (4/10)
Tone/Action (4/10)
Cinematography/Visuals (4/10)
Sound/Music (4/10)
Editing (2/10)
Pacing/Length (2/10)
Score: 32/100.
LIKES:
+Ambitious production values
+Some entertainment value in the action
DISLIKES:
-Flat, wasted performances
-Generic story relies on safe clichés and unearned emotion
-Uninteresting, thin characters
-Messy visuals and editing
-Irritatingly loud sound design
-Slightly overlong runtime, boring pacing
Silent Hill: Revelation (2012)
Unbelievably cheesy step down from its predecessor on every level
What on earth happened? I know that the first film isn't particularly well-liked on Letterboxd because it is based on a video game series after all (and I would love to play it, but there's sadly no way to do so), but I admit I enjoyed Silent Hill (2005). I don't know the source material, but out of all the video game movies I've seen, Silent Hill is easily the best one so far, since there's a great sense of mystery, a clever reliance on mood and atmosphere over cheap scares, and some interesting story elements. As for Revelation 3D? It has none of the qualities that made the first film so enjoyable to watch.
I'm not sure where to start, except that the plot is a complete mess. While I could comprehend the story in the first film, there's no coherency in the sequel and all the set pieces are so lazily stringed together, you wonder if a few of them could have been removed during post-production. When the movie tries to tell you the plot, it has the characters speak exposition so unnatural that it's laughable, and it's made worse by the cringeworthy line deliveries. There were often moments of good acting, in particular Adelaide Clemens who delivers the more believable performance of the film, but the entire cast is let down by clunky dialogue and direction. Sean Bean's role is wasted, Malcolm McDowell and Carrie-Anne Moss deliver embarrassing performances, and Kit Harington's American accent was distractingly poor.
From what I've heard about the video games, the world of Silent Hill has plenty of mythological potential to explore, and there are glimpses of this, but it's completely wasted by the writing. It builds the first act so poorly that I struggled to get invested in the characters. Not only that, but the writing has the *gall* to retcon the ending of the first film, so that a "plot" can just take place. And it's full of unevenly paced, badly-executed scare sequences. There's one sequence involving a giant spider made out of dummy parts which has absolutely no point to the story. And then there are a few monsters that exist to deliver a cheap jump scare rather than propel the plot forward.
Speaking of which, did I tell you that there's so much jump scares? Whereas the first Silent Hill didn't have any? There is literally a jump scare in almost every scene, much to the neglect of building an atmosphere. The scare factor becomes desperate to the point that the film jumpscares you with a pop tart. And at the time Revelation was released in cinemas, it seems to be capitalising off of the 3D effects rather than using them to enhance the horror. The CGI is insanely bad, and it's clear that a much cheaper budget has been spent. The first film cost $50 million to make and it looked beautiful, right? Well, Revelation cost $20 million and the visuals and settings look ugly! The visual style is so bad that the editing is a mess and the soundtrack has been butchered.
When the film ends, it sets itself up for a future sequel by making a couple of video game references (I said I haven't played the games, I did my research too) and I was left annoyed when the credits rolled. Who thought it would be a good idea to take the Silent Hill films in this direction? What made writer and director M.J. Bassett think the plot choices and scare sequences were actually that good? Revelation is not only an annoying viewing experience for potentially fans of horror and the video game series, it ends up tainting the value of the first Silent Hill film and represents everything wrong with video game movies.
Plot and Characters (1/10)
Presentation and Direction (1/10)
Acting (4/10)
Script (1/10)
Setting/Locations (4/10)
Tone/Atmosphere (2/10)
Cinematography/Visuals (3/10)
Sound/Music (2/10)
Editing (2/10)
Pacing/Length (2/10)
Score: 23/100.
LIKES:
+Glimpses of some good performances
+Potential at worldbuilding
DISLIKES:
-Heavy reliance on jumpscares
-Cheap production values, lack of atmosphere
-Cringeworthy dialogue with worse delivery
-Laughable 3D visuals
-Poor acting + Kit Harington's accent
-Messy plot and underdeveloped characters
-Lazily directed (and badly linked) scare sequences
-Distractingly bad music and sound effects
-Boring pace
Jacob's Ladder (2019)
Can't believe I rented this for $2.99
I'm not sure what I was thinking when I rented this movie from iTunes for $2.99. Sure, it's a low price and I wanted to watch this movie to see how bad it was, and as I suspected, this movie is a complete desecration of the original Jacob's Ladder.
Before I watched the remake, I decided to rewatch the original Jacob's Ladder, where the religious symbolism became more evident and some of the surreal elements more disturbing. It's perhaps one of the saddest horror movies I've seen, but also deeply thought-provoking within its bleak, existential themes, and it has one of Tim Robbins's best performance.
But onto the remake... there's so much wrong with the film I don't know where to start. How about the religious symbolism? Completely misrepresented. And the remake tries to offer something different by focusing on psychological themes of paranoia, but it isn't just portrayed shallowly, this film has little understanding of the original source material. The philosophical undertones of the original film are missing, and whereas that managed to build up its story in a compelling way while providing an open-ended nature to leave behind various interpretations, the remake leaves no room for imagination. It takes some of the plot points from the original film and explains them in an unsubtle manner. How the dialogue is delivered, ESPECIALLY the Eckhart monologue, is unforgivable.
Oh, how about the atmosphere? The remake doesn't craft one, instead it has to throw in that cheap, dumb jumpscare! I thought there would be more jumpscares, but they are still there nonetheless. Visually, the remake looks ugly and there's nothing memorable in the soundtrack, while the original film has a stronger visual style and a genuinely haunting atmosphere to the point that I teared up towards the end. But in the remake? I felt nothing. I didn't care about the protagonist or his relationship with his brother, it fails to emotionally invest you, and by the time the biggest plot twist is revealed, I no longer cared.
The only positives I can say are that Michael Ealy tries to deliver a good performance (even though most of the performances are unconvincing), and the film's mercifully short at 89 minutes. That's about it. There's just no reason for this film to exist. Do yourself a favour and watch the original Jacob's Ladder, one of the best horror films ever made. The remake is a travesty on pretty much every level.
Plot and Characters (1/10)
Presentation and Direction (2/10)
Acting (5/10)
Script (1/10)
Setting/Locations (2/10)
Tone/Atmosphere (1/10)
Cinematography/Visuals (3/10)
Sound/Music (3/10)
Editing (2/10)
Pacing/Length (3/10)
Score: 23/100.
LIKES:
+Michael Ealy is trying
+Mercifully short
DISLIKES:
-Misunderstands the original film
-Jump scares used over atmosphere
-Mediocre performances
-Terrible direction
-Unflattering visuals
-Poorly portrayed psychology and character relationships