Monday, April 25, 2011

Into the Further: A Review of INSIDIOUS

Expected grade: 6/10

Actual grade: 8/10

(For a full explanation of my grading system, check out this post.)


I am a huge fan of scary movies, so going in to Insidious, I was expecting to have a good time. However, all the posters and promotional materials heavily feature a young boy looking creepy, and therefore it was easy to expect an evil-child-themed movie, which has been overdone recently with the remake of The Omen, Orphan, and Joshua (among many others). Furthermore, realistic horror movies with real people terrorizing other real people (see The Strangers, etc) have always scared me more than the supernatural (ghosts, zombies, etc), so while I was expecting to enjoy the movie, I wasn’t necessarily expecting it to be a new favorite.


Insidious, directed by James Wan and written by Leigh Whannell (who also made Saw and Dead Silence), is, as it turns out, one of the scariest movies I've seen in a long, long time. It was atmospheric, intense, beautifully shot, and well-acted by both Rose Byrne and Patrick Wilson in the roles of the beleaguered and terrorized parents. The scares are many and varied, with no false scares like a cat jumping out of a closet to evoke cheap screams. There's also zero gore. The terror is genuine and unrelenting. I will admit that even as a 22-year-old man, I watched much of it from between my fingers.


A major complaint about the movie I've heard is that it's unoriginal and copies other classic horror films such as Poltergeist. In my opinion, while the film indeed draws inspiration from several different sources, it manages to string these themes into a fresh, new take on the traditional "haunted house" story with a twist.


My only complaint is that the movie ceases to be as scary once everything is explained about two-thirds of the way through the film. It doesn't stop being scary entirely, but it definitely becomes more eerie and creepy than truly, gut-wrenchingly terrifying once we as an audience have been let in on what exactly is occurring. The explanation is obviously necessary for the understanding of the film, but it is testament to the fact that the unknown is infinitely scarier than the known.


Finally, there's the ending. It doesn't end with the plot tied up in a neat little bow, neither in a "They vanquished evil!" nor a "Everyone died!" way. There's a final twist, and then it just...ends. The audience is given no time to experience the fall-out of the twist. All of a sudden the credits are rolling. Initially, I felt incredibly dissatisfied and unhappy with this, but as time passed, I began to admire the creators' choice to end the film as they did. I didn't feel any more satisfied, but I did feel more impressed that they chose to take such a risk. The creators made this world, brought us into it, and then rather than wrapping it up satisfactorily so we could go back into our own lives, they simply ended it, leaving the threads they'd woven dangling in our minds. Whether satisfied or not, I was definitely still thinking about the movie long after I'd left the theatre, and this, I believe, was their intention. If so, they were incredibly successful.


Watching this movie was an extremely stressful experience, but also an extremely cathartic one. I am a scary movie junky -- I love the adrenaline rush that accompanies the terror. If you are also a fan of horror movies, this is an absolute must-see. If not, then you should probably steer clear -- this is not the place to start. It is the closest thing I've seen recently to the classic, gothic, atmospheric horror movies of the past. It is refreshing to see a movie that relies more on psychological terror than blood and guts to scare its audience.


PS- I promise I won't only be reviewing horror movies! Pure coincidence that my first two reviews happened to be both of scary movies. :)


Thursday, April 21, 2011

Why reviewers are full of crap* and I'm not: A thesis

*well, most of them, anyway.

We all read reviews. How seriously we take them is another question, but we do read them. I know I do. And I find that we often take it for granted that these reviewers know what they're talking about. I mean, they wouldn't have gotten hired to review movies if they didn't know anything about movies, right? I hope not. But sometimes we forget that reviewers aren't objective movie-watching machines. They are human beings, subject to preferences and moods like everyone else. And as much as we count on them to be able to turn off that part of themselves when they watch a movie, that's usually impossible.

Think of it like taking the SATs. Is it really fair that a score that is so important be determined by one four-hour test on one day? Most kids would say no. What if I didn't get much sleep? Or forgot to eat that granola bar my mom sent with me? Or what if I'm just not a good test taker? The same things applies to reviewers. What if Roger Ebert was up until 4 the night before and in a really crappy mood when he watches Thor? Or what if he for some inexplicable reason has an intense phobia of hammers? People may base whether or not they spend their hard-earned money on how good of a day Mr. Ebert was having last Friday.

Isn't word of mouth from your peers so much more valuable than that? You know what kinds of movies your friends like. You know whether or not to take what they say seriously. You may know that when the kid who sits next to you in class says "it was the best movie ever!" what he really means is "there were lots of explosions and boobs!" I'd rather hear about a movie from a friend any day. But the thing that bothers me the most is when reviewers criticize a movie without context. Allow me to explain.

Everything has context. Nothing exists in a vacuum. We all go into movies with expectations and that, I believe, is the most crucial aspect to our enjoyment of it. Yet I find that reviewers are oftentimes quite oblivious to context.  In Time Out magazine, Keith Uhlich wrote in his 3/5 star review of Scream 4: "don't go in expecting scares so much as laughs." Has this man never seen a Scream movie before? As any person who has seen at least one Scream movie can tell you, they are horror-COMEDIES. They are supposed to make you laugh. They are parodies of themselves and every slasher movie ever made. That is what made the first one so famous in the first place. So kudos to him for pointing that fact out to us potential viewers, but using that as a reason to knock the movie down a peg is, in my opinion, unacceptable seeing as how it's the whole conceit of the film.

Another recent example of context-less reviewing was a review I read of the movie Sucker Punch. Now, as anyone else who has seen this movie can tell you, it's not exactly Citizen Kane. But then again, was anyone going into it expecting it to be? I thought the previews made it pretty darn clear what the point of the movie was: over-the-top, stylized action scenes showing young girls kicking Nazi, ninja, dragon ass (among other things). Whether or not you thought the movie was effective in that kick-assing is your opinion -- but there's no doubt that was its intent. The reviewer Thomas Caldwell on Cinema Autopsy.com wrote in his .5/5 star review of the film, "This may well be the film that goes down in film history as epitomizing the very worst trends in popular culture of this era." He calls it "one of those loud, dumb, vacuous films that rely on the veneer of excitement to placate uncritical audiences rather than providing anything of real substance." Yet I was never under the impression that director Zach Snyder was out to provide anything of real substance. It seemed to me that he achieved exactly what he set out to do, which was, in Caldwell's own words, to "placate uncritical audiences." In that sense, his movie was a success. It seems as though Caldwell's half a star was more aimed at the culture in this country that demands such films and allows them to be made, whereas the film itself was actually pretty successful in what it was trying to accomplish. (Not that he didn't make some good points -- I don't disagree with everything he had to say about the movie.)

Finally, we can't forget that personal preferences can have a much stronger effect on our reactions than we sometimes think. Lisa Schwarzbaum, who reviews for Entertainment Weekly, gave a B+ grade to both Twilight: New Moon and the movie that would go on to win Best Picture this year, The King's Speech. In comparison, Rotten Tomatoes (which, if you don't know, compiles every review written about a movie and averages them out to a percentage score) gave The King's Speech a 95%. New Moon? 27%. I am not making this up. Two movies that, on average, were graded 68 percentage points apart were given the exact same grade by Ms. Schwarzbaum. Apparently she has a thing for sparkly vampires and werewolves with tight abs. Knowing how personal preference can easily sway a reviewer's opinion, it is important to take all reviews with a grain of salt. I won't stop reading what Ms. Schwarzbaum has to say, but I will remember that it is just one woman's opinion, and not the universal measurement of the quality of the film.

So to recap what has turned into a much longer post than I anticipated: the history of a series, the culture a movie is made for, and the expectations and personal preferences of the viewers is all context that has a huge impact on how movies are perceived. That's why I intend to review movies on my blog based on expectations I have of the film going in. I find that to be the most helpful kind of criticism. I will let you know what I expected based on the trailer and other promotional material, and how it measured up to what was actually delivered. That way you as a reader can judge for yourself if you think the movie will measure up to YOUR expectations. I also want to start discussions about movies, not just one-sided opinions. So please, always feel free to hit the comments. That is my goal with this blog. I hope you find it a refreshing change of pace from the usual I-know-more-about-what-makes-a-good-movie-than-you-do approach.

Oh, and if you made it this far, I promise not all of my posts will be this long and rambling. I'm just still in the honeymoon phase with my blog. You know, all excited and overenthusiastic. I expect it to wear off soon...

[I'd also like to take this opportunity to explain my grading a little bit. To some, especially those who equate number ratings to grades (ie 9/10 = A, 8/10 = B, etc) a 5/10 may sound like a failing grade. However, I would prefer to consider it perfectly average. Anything above is above average, and anything below is below average (obviously). So a rating of 8/10 is actually very good, and a 5 is not terrible.]

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

In Defense Of Ghostface: A Review of SCRE4M

Expected grade: 7/10
Actual grade: 8/10
(For a full explanation of my grading system, check out this post.)

Let me get one thing on the table right away: I freaking LOVED Scream 4. I thought it was one of the most effective, spookiest and funniest horror sequels I've ever seen. It was definitely my favorite Scream movie since the original. The showing I went to was sold out and full of people screaming in terror and clapping in delight. However, the film pulled in only $19.3 million its opening weekend, compared to Rio's $40 million opening at the same time (which is incidentally the biggest opening so far this year). Why did this happen? In a fascinating article I read on EW.com, readers were polled to answer the question "Why didn't you see Scream 4?" The possible answers were 1) "I read the reviews," 2) "I lost interest in the franchise," 3) "There was something better to see, and 4) "Another reason, which I'll tell you about in the comments." The winner? Approximately 50% of voters answered with #2. The least voted response? #1. So maybe there is hope! Mediocre reviews were the least compelling reason people didn't go see it. And the main reason was that it has just been too long since the last Scream movie came out (11 years). (Incidentally, the original Scream grossed only $6.3 million its opening weekend and went on to become one of the best-loved horror films of all time.)

The fact that a film as inventive as Scream 4, with well-loved characters and a script full of zippy dialogue, can gross only $19.3 million, whereas Saw 7 pulled in $24.2 million in its opening weekend is a travesty. Was Scream 4 a perfect film? No. It is still a slasher movie and therefore adheres to slasher movie tropes even while pointing them out and making fun of them. This "meta"-ness is what made the original Scream so famous, and now, fifteen years later, is starting to feel a little tired. But without the discussions of the "rules" and everything else that makes Scream meta, it wouldn't be Scream anymore -- it would be just any other horror movie. The addition of the phenomenon of our society's obsession with filming and live streaming everything feels a little forced and actually ends up being underused in the movie.

But what has always made the Scream series different from other slasher movies is that it is the heroes that remain constant, while the villain changes every film. Whereas Halloween always has Michael Myers and Friday the 13th has Jason and Elm Street's got Freddy, the thread throughout the Scream films is Sidney, Gale and Dewey. This, in my opinion, makes the movies more meaningful, as we are always watching characters we love and care about. They're not just disposable archetypes that you know will be gone by the next film. Watching this movie is like watching old friends -- you cheer them on and genuinely want them to survive.

Scream 4 also boasts the best opening sequence since the original. Of course, nothing can ever top Drew Barrymore being terrorized, stalked and gutted in the opening minutes of Scream, but this is a close second. I won't reveal any more than to say you will be surprised, then you'll laugh, then you'll be scared. The new cast of younger actors is surprisingly likable, especially a surprisingly good turn by Hayden Panetierre as Sidney's cousin's best friend and closet movie buff. And for fans of Community or Mad Men, the lovely Alison Brie has a small but meaty roll as Sidney's ruthless, over-agressive and hilariously foul-mouthed publicist.

***SPOILERS -- DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE AND WANT TO***

In my opinion, what made this movie so great was that it cast all these young, up-and-coming hot young actors and marketed them as the future of the franchise. It cast kid flick favorite Emma Roberts as Sidney's niece Jill, and many people speculated that if Sidney were to die in this movie, Jill would become the new protagonist and usher the series into a new generation. In fact, in the movie, the characters proclaim this new killing spree a "remake" rather than a sequel, and the "rules" that are described are those of a remake, with even the original cast members as potential victims. The way the movie manages to turn that expectation on its head is its strongest asset. By the end of the film, every single one of the young pretty cast members is dead, including Jill who, in one of the series' best twists, is revealed to be the killer. (Emma Roberts is shockingly effective after the reveal, especially in one scene where she psychotically stages the murder scene to make herself the victim by stabbing herself, tearing out her own hair and throwing herself into glass coffee tables -- it's simultaneously funny and chilling.) In the film's best line, Sidney declares as she kills her homicidal cousin, "You forgot the first rule of remakes: Don't fuck with the original." Utterly brilliant.

***END SPOILERS***

To summarize, the expectation I had going into this film was to laugh some, scream some, and watch a more-than-decade-old series be rebooted and ushered into the new generation with a pretty cast of youngsters. What I ended up getting was a lot of laughs, a lot of screams, and a film that focused more on its original trio of beloved characters and stuck true to the spirit of the series while coming up with some new ways to scare us. Is Ghostface as creative a killer as, say, Jigsaw? No -- he doesn't put people in intricate traps that end in grotesque dismemberment. Instead, Ghostface sticks with the tried and true method -- a good old-fashioned butcher knife. Perhaps that is why these movies aren't as appealing to our generation anymore: horror movies can't hold our attention without body parts flying every ten minutes. But it is exactly this adherence to the old ways and the sentimentality it brings that makes this movie so good. Watching it is like going back to the good old 90s, when times were simpler and killers just stabbed people.

If you saw Scream 4, tell me what you thought! If you didn't, why not? What's your favorite Scream movie? Hit the comments!

It's gonna be an expensive summer...

Welcome to my first ever blog post! I'm a huge film dork (obviously), and I spend way too much time obsessing over movies to not make it a productive hobby. So my boyfriend finally convinced me to start a blog and share my thoughts. (His name's Adam and I told him I would give him props... there you go, Adam!) So here I am.

When I saw the Summer Movie Preview issue of Entertainment Weekly, I realized there were approximately 10 gazillion movies coming out in the next three months that I'm super excited about, and I decided that would be the perfect subject for my first entry. Who cares if 98% of them are action movies/superhero movies/sequels. Isn't that what summer is all about? The great American tradition of mindless special effects bonanzas? But there seems to be an unprecedented amount of them this summer. I will see as many of the films listed below as humanly possible and post reviews throughout the coming months.
Let's get this party started!

Here, in chronological order, are the movies I'm most excited about this summer:
Think I missed something? Tell me what movies you're looking forward to the most and which you think are gonna tank. Hit me up in the comments!

Thor (May 6)
The first movie of the summer to introduce a new superhero, setting up next summer's The Avengers. Plus Natalie Portman straight off her Oscar...and then three bombs in a row (The Other Woman, No Strings Attached, Your Highness). Hopefully this will put her back on track, if not to Oscar-worthy material, then to at least something palatable.

Bridesmaids (May 13)
The Hangover with chicks. Kristen Wiig looks hysterical, as always. Plus I love Rose Byrne (from FX's Damages, which if you don't watch, you absolutely should).

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (May 20)
Okay so admittedly neither of the sequels were as good as the original, but with the subtraction of Keira I-act-with-my-jawline Knightley and Orlando I-don't-act-at-all Bloom, and the addition of Penelope Cruz and Ian McShane, hopefully this one will regain some of the magic. I remain cautiously optimistic.

The Hangover Part II (May 26)
The Wolfpack is back. This time in Thailand. Enough said.

The Tree Of Life (May 27)
Director Terrence Malick hasn't released a movie in six years. Hopefully that means he's had time to make a movie better than The New World. Don't really have any idea what this movie's about, but it looks promising.

X-Men: First Class (June 3)
One of my biggest celebrity crushes playing Professor X? Yes, please. Plus Rose Byrne again and Winter Bone's Jennifer Lawrence. Hopefully this will be more X2 than Last Stand or Wolverine.

Super 8 (June 10)
JJ Abrams AND Steven Spielberg? I'm gonna die. I would watch anything JJ Abrams comes up with (except for Undercovers...let's face it, that was pretty bad). And pairing him with Spielberg is genius. This is the collaboration of the summer I'm most looking forward to.

Green Lantern (June 17)
2010's Sexiest Man Alive as a superhero? Yes please. Don't know much about Green Lantern mythology, but I'll be in line.

Cars 2 (June 24)
I would still prefer an Incredibles sequel and Cars is my least favorite Pixar movie, but that's like saying the Almond & Sea Salt is my least favorite candy in my box of Easter chocolates: it's still delicious. Pixar has yet to disappoint and I doubt they'll start soon.

Transformers: Dark Of The Moon (July 1)
Giant robots fighting and blowing things up. What's not to love? Okay so the second one was basically a mess. But Michael Bay himself has even admitted that it sucked. He claims this one will be better. I want to believe him. But let's face it, I'd still go even if he was lying through his teeth. What's summer good for if not shiny cars transforming into havoc-wreaking metal aliens?

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 (July 15)
Self explanatory.

Captain America: The First Avenger (July 22)
Okay, so I'd just like to point out that Thor is technically the "First Avenger" of the summer. But I guess they're talking historical timeline. Whatever. Chris Evans is hot and Hugo Weaving is always an awesome villain. And again, must see this one to prepare for the Joss Whedon superhero orgy next year.

Cowboys & Aliens (July 29)
Steven Spielberg + Daniel Craig + Harrison Ford = campy-genre-mashup goodness. Can't wait to see how they explain how a bunch of hicks with shotguns on horses can compete with a species so technologically advanced they've figured out how to cross interstellar distances.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (August 5)
First piece of good news: this film is in no way related to Tim Burton's disastrous remake. Second piece of good news: this film stars James Franco. Third piece of good news: motion capture Andy Serkis, who's already brought his genius movements to Gollum and King Kong. Fourth piece of good news: Draco Malfoy in his first post-Harry Potter role. Fifth piece of good news: apes going ape-shit (pun intended) on humans.

Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (August 12)
Guillermo Del Toro + horror = me cowering like a little girl. At least that's what I hope. I'll be disappointed if I'm not peeing my pants.

The Help (August 12)
Awesome book. Seriously, everyone should read it. Plus I love Emma Stone and Allison Janney and Viola Davis and pretty much everyone else on the cast list. This should be the feel-good ending to an action-packed summer.

MOVIES I WILL PROBABLY NETFLIX AT A LATER DATE:
- Kung Fu Panda 2: Still have yet to finish the first one in spite of trying twice
- Mr. Popper's Penguins: One of my favorite books as a kid
- Bad Teacher: Cameron Diaz as the world's worst teacher? Could be funny, could be tragic
- The Perfect Host: David Hyde Pierce as the world's most killer host? Could be horrifying, could be campy
- Horrible Bosses: Kevin Spacey, Colin Farrell and Jennifer Aniston as the world's worst bosses? I'm sensing a theme of extremes here...
- One Day: I hear the book is great, but I haven't read it yet, which obviously must be done first
- Friends With Benefits: AKA No Strings Attached's sexier, funnier cousin
- Crazy, Stupid Love: Emma Stone + Ryan Gosling as a playboy...yum
- The Change-Up: The crasser, bro-ier version of Freaky Friday starring Ryan Reynolds and Jason Bateman
- Final Destination 5: I know, I know...but I love watching Death off pretty teens in ways that would make Rube Goldberg proud
- Our Idiot Brother: Paul Rudd, Zooey Deschanel, Elizabeth Banks, Emily Mortimer, Adam Scott: comedy dream team? We'll see