Since I already watched the so-called remake of this movie, I figured that I would go ahead and watch the original, the 1979 horror film The Amityville Horror. This in spite of the fact that I was told it was actually worse than the 2005 version, which I would think would be hard to accomplish. Based on the 'true' story of the Lutz family as written by author Jay Anson, The Amityville Horror was distributed by American International Pictures and directed by Stuart Rosenberg (Cool Hand Luke, Brubaker). The film stars James Brolin, Margot Kidder, Rod Steiger, Don Stroud, Murray Hamilton, and Helen Shaver. In The Amityville Horror, the Lutz family, including George (Brolin) and Kathy (Kidder), move into to a house on Long Island with a dark history. Hoping that they've found their dream home, the Lutzes soon realize that this is the house that nightmares are made of, and so they consult Father Delaney (Steiger) to get rid of the spirits. But can he get rid of the spirits, or have he and the Lutz family gotten more than what they bargained for? A few notes about this film:
- Because I watched the remake before the original, I couldn't help but think back to the similarities and differences of the two movies. In the original, Amy's (the daughter) imaginary friend was Jodi, some sort of demonic pig (yep, a demonic pig). In the remake, Jodi was the ghost of one of the victims in the DeLeo murders. I honestly can't decide which one was worse. Just like the remake, George is always complaining about being cold and has an obsession with chopping fire wood. In the remake, the audience gets a lot of shots of a shirtless Ryan Reynolds, which does nothing for me, while in the original, you get a sequence of James Brolin walking around in his briefs. Gee, thanks a lot. In the original, the priest and the religious aspect of the story play a much bigger role, as does Kathy Lutz, who was little more than an unwilling victim in the remake.
- You know, I might not be an expert on horror movies, but I think that one of the things its supposed to do is to provide a sense of terror and fear throughout the viewing audience. Maybe it's just me, but there's not a lot here that I would consider particularly scary. Yes, I suppose that a giant gathering a flies is kind of odd, but more annoying than scary. There's some black ink coming out of the toilet, a window closes on a kid's hand (yet doesn't break any bones), 1,500 dollars goes missing for no reason, and oh yeah, the house has a portal to hell. Plus it seems to attract lightning and it's phone keeps messing up when talking to priests. To me, all of the effects and events seem kind of dull, actually, and didn't really add any suspense to the film. Then again, maybe I'm just jaded by the whole horror film genre.
- As George Lutz, James Brolin makes a more convincing crazed lunatic than Reynolds did. Then again, Brolin started the film as an aloof guy with the look of a man that has hidden a few bodies in the basement before, so it's not that much of a stretch. At least in this version, George kind of realizes what is happening and doesn't go completely psychotic. He even tries to find out the root behind this problem by stealing a library book. Why he didn't just check the book out is a mystery. Plus, in this version, George begins to look like the killer of the Amityville murders, although what significance this has is never really explained. Overall, I'd say Brolin did an average job, although the scene where he shouts "I'm Coming Apart" somewhat reminded me of Tommy Wiseau's acting in The Room, and no, that is not a compliment.
- Meanwhile, Academy Award winner (but not for this film) Rod Steiger tries to steal the show as Father Delaney. To say the Steiger was hamming it up is a bit of an understatement, as he practically shouts every line and has two extremes, either quiet and still, or raving like a lunatic. Steiger's acting was almost comical in this film. Plus, even though he was only in that house one time, Father Delaney kept suffering misfortune after misfortune thanks to his one visit. The poor guy even went blind. I'm not sure how a house can posses a person from 20 miles away, but by golly that's what it did here. As for Kiddor, well, let's just say she acted with all the intensity that LeBron James showed in the fourth quarter of NBA Finals games.
- The script of The Amityville Horror has quite a few loose ends that just go dangling. For one, what the heck happened to that police officer that surveyed the Lutz house for two days or so, tried to talk to Delaney, then disappeared into thin air. There's also the drunk with a six pack of beer that shows up at Kathy's door, then disappears a minute later without explanation. What happened to the 1,500 dollars that disappeared? And what would a house do with 1,500 dollars anyway? What happened to George's friend's wife after she got possessed? I guess the answers to these questions were just left to twist in the wind.
Overall, I will say that this was better than the remake, but just barely. The script was better paced, but still had a lot of loose ends. There was slightly more character development in this film, but not enough to make any of the Lutz family characters you really care about. Some people consider this one of the great horror movies of its era, but I'm not seeing how that's possible. The acting was sometimes way too over-the-top, the effects were more silly than scary, and the ending was rather anticlimactic. Overall, I'd give this Amityville Horror a 3.2 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any comments about this review or film, or ideas for future reviews, then feel free to share by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
For the trailer, watch here: http://youtu.be/p35R8X5l0cU
Showing posts with label horror movie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label horror movie. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Canon Movie Review: The Amityville Horror (2005)
This movie review is actually the start of a mini Ryan Reynolds marathon here at The Canon Review. See, the other day I was chilling in the pool with a few peeps, and when the topic of Ryan Reynolds came up, I mentioned that I had not seen many of his movies at all. Well, they laughed at me and called me names, and vowed to never speak to me again unless I watched at least four of his movies and wrote up a review on each one. So, in an effort to win back the respect I have lost, here is the first of four Ryan Reynolds movies to be reviewed this week, the 2005 remake The Amityville Horror. Distributed by MGM and Dimension Films, and directed by Andrew Douglas (a first time director who hasn't directed another film since), The Amityville Horror stars Reynolds, Melissa George, Phillip Baker Hall, Jesse James, Chloe Moretz, and Rachel Nichols. In The Amityville Horror, the Lutz family (with Reynolds as George Lutz and George as Kathy) stumble across what they consider to be their dream house. Despite hearing that a brutal murder took place in the same house years ago, the Lutzes decide to buy the house anyway, figuring what's the worse that can happen? Well, as the movie illustrates, a lot can happen. A few notes about this film:
- Although the book 'The Amityville Horror' is supposedly based on a true story, this version bears little resemblence to the original source material. Yes, the characters are still named the Lutzes and they live in a haunted house in Long Island, but this version has the father go crazy a la Jack Torrance in The Shining, to the point where I kind of expected Reynolds to chop through the door with an ax and yell "Here's Johnny!" The actual George Lutz wasn't really pleased with Reynolds' portrayal of him, so he decided to sue the makers of the movie. I don't really know what the result of the lawsuit was, but Lutz passed away not long after filing suit.
- The Amityville Horror was directed by Andrew Douglas, but it was also produced by Michael Bay, and this film has Bay's influence all over it. As such, the film looks sharp and there are lots of special effects thrown in there seemingly just to throw them in there. Since the movie's script was kind of thin, Douglas decided to compensate by throwing nearly every horror movie cliche in that he could think of. From maggots on the wall, to visions of blood spewing everywhere, to an attack by a bunch of flies, to George nearly being drowned in the bathtub for whatever reason, this film tries hard to fit in as much cliches as possible. Also, the script writers decided that a ghost of one of the murder victims, a little girl named Jodi, would make a great addition to the story, so they threw her in there so she could torture a mean babysitter from her life. What fun!
- As far as the acting goes, I'll be kind and say that it wasn't too bad. Reynolds was decent as George Lutz. Yes, he was basically doing an impression of Jack Nicholson in The Shining, but at least he was halfway convincing as a man that had lost his mind. Although I get the feeling that he was cast not only because of his acting talents, but because of his abs, as he is shirtless for almost half the movie. Also, for some reason, George begins to have an obsession with chopping firewood, which I guess is meant to be a sign that a man is losing his mind. As Kathy Lutz, Melissa George was competent enough, although the script mainly portrayed her as little more than a hapless victim throughout the majority of the film. The child actors (James, Moretz, and Jimmy Bennett), aren't too bad, I suppose.
- However, if I was George Lutz and I had inherited a brood like that after marrying Kathy, I might go insane after a while myself. Michael (Bennett) is a strange little kid, but he's the least of George's problems. The oldest one, Billy, is not very fond of George and spends most of the movie whining about how he's old enough to do this or that or whatever, while the daughter Chelsea is seemingly possessed by a dead girl to the point where she nearly jumps off the damn roof, and then screams at her mother after she denies the existence of the dead girl. Worse yet, the dang dog won't stop barking and somehow finds his way into the boathouse every night. Yeah, the house being haunted may not have helped George's state of mind, but the kids and the dog did him no favors either.
- One of the more ridiculous sideplots of the movie involved the babysitter (Nichols). It starts will Billy quibbling about not needing a babysitter to the point where you want George to send Billy out to cut some more firewood so he can get the hell off the screen, and then here comes the babysitter, looking as if she came out of the pages of Young Hooker Monthly. Instead of sending this girl away, George makes some crack to Billy about wanting a sitter now and the couple goes on their merry way. While at the house, the babysitter smokes some pot, hangs out on Billy's bed and seems to want to jump the little tyke's bones before telling Billy about the murders that took place here. She then goes up to Chelsea's room, and she's saying something about Jodi not liking her or something, and eventually Billy makes a dare with the sitter to go into the closet where Jodi was murdered. Well, she goes in there, and here's Jodi. Naturally, the door will not open, so the sitter's in there with a crazed Jodi, whom for some reason makes the sitter feel her bullet hole and causes all sort of fast-cut chaos before the sitter is wheeled out shaking on a stretcher. You know what? Describing it isn't enough, so WHO WANTS TO SEE IT?
Overall, I'm not a fan of this movie. At times, the movie jumped around at a breakneck pace, so you never got any real sense of what George and Kathy were like before all the craziness started happening. The movie relied way too much on special effects and horror cliches, and the actors had little to do but just react to whatever CGI madness they were supposed to react to. Also, for what is supposed to be a 'true story', there are way too many elements of the story that are too remarkable to be true. At the end of the day, what you get is a mediocre at best horror film that is short on story and horror, but not short of special effects. I'd give it a 3 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any ideas for future posts on this blog, or thoughts about this movie, then share those either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
- Although the book 'The Amityville Horror' is supposedly based on a true story, this version bears little resemblence to the original source material. Yes, the characters are still named the Lutzes and they live in a haunted house in Long Island, but this version has the father go crazy a la Jack Torrance in The Shining, to the point where I kind of expected Reynolds to chop through the door with an ax and yell "Here's Johnny!" The actual George Lutz wasn't really pleased with Reynolds' portrayal of him, so he decided to sue the makers of the movie. I don't really know what the result of the lawsuit was, but Lutz passed away not long after filing suit.
- The Amityville Horror was directed by Andrew Douglas, but it was also produced by Michael Bay, and this film has Bay's influence all over it. As such, the film looks sharp and there are lots of special effects thrown in there seemingly just to throw them in there. Since the movie's script was kind of thin, Douglas decided to compensate by throwing nearly every horror movie cliche in that he could think of. From maggots on the wall, to visions of blood spewing everywhere, to an attack by a bunch of flies, to George nearly being drowned in the bathtub for whatever reason, this film tries hard to fit in as much cliches as possible. Also, the script writers decided that a ghost of one of the murder victims, a little girl named Jodi, would make a great addition to the story, so they threw her in there so she could torture a mean babysitter from her life. What fun!
- As far as the acting goes, I'll be kind and say that it wasn't too bad. Reynolds was decent as George Lutz. Yes, he was basically doing an impression of Jack Nicholson in The Shining, but at least he was halfway convincing as a man that had lost his mind. Although I get the feeling that he was cast not only because of his acting talents, but because of his abs, as he is shirtless for almost half the movie. Also, for some reason, George begins to have an obsession with chopping firewood, which I guess is meant to be a sign that a man is losing his mind. As Kathy Lutz, Melissa George was competent enough, although the script mainly portrayed her as little more than a hapless victim throughout the majority of the film. The child actors (James, Moretz, and Jimmy Bennett), aren't too bad, I suppose.
- However, if I was George Lutz and I had inherited a brood like that after marrying Kathy, I might go insane after a while myself. Michael (Bennett) is a strange little kid, but he's the least of George's problems. The oldest one, Billy, is not very fond of George and spends most of the movie whining about how he's old enough to do this or that or whatever, while the daughter Chelsea is seemingly possessed by a dead girl to the point where she nearly jumps off the damn roof, and then screams at her mother after she denies the existence of the dead girl. Worse yet, the dang dog won't stop barking and somehow finds his way into the boathouse every night. Yeah, the house being haunted may not have helped George's state of mind, but the kids and the dog did him no favors either.
- One of the more ridiculous sideplots of the movie involved the babysitter (Nichols). It starts will Billy quibbling about not needing a babysitter to the point where you want George to send Billy out to cut some more firewood so he can get the hell off the screen, and then here comes the babysitter, looking as if she came out of the pages of Young Hooker Monthly. Instead of sending this girl away, George makes some crack to Billy about wanting a sitter now and the couple goes on their merry way. While at the house, the babysitter smokes some pot, hangs out on Billy's bed and seems to want to jump the little tyke's bones before telling Billy about the murders that took place here. She then goes up to Chelsea's room, and she's saying something about Jodi not liking her or something, and eventually Billy makes a dare with the sitter to go into the closet where Jodi was murdered. Well, she goes in there, and here's Jodi. Naturally, the door will not open, so the sitter's in there with a crazed Jodi, whom for some reason makes the sitter feel her bullet hole and causes all sort of fast-cut chaos before the sitter is wheeled out shaking on a stretcher. You know what? Describing it isn't enough, so WHO WANTS TO SEE IT?
Overall, I'm not a fan of this movie. At times, the movie jumped around at a breakneck pace, so you never got any real sense of what George and Kathy were like before all the craziness started happening. The movie relied way too much on special effects and horror cliches, and the actors had little to do but just react to whatever CGI madness they were supposed to react to. Also, for what is supposed to be a 'true story', there are way too many elements of the story that are too remarkable to be true. At the end of the day, what you get is a mediocre at best horror film that is short on story and horror, but not short of special effects. I'd give it a 3 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any ideas for future posts on this blog, or thoughts about this movie, then share those either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Canon Movie Review: White Noise
The final movie of the Halloween weekend Horror Movie mini-marathon (even though Halloween is technically over, but nevertheless) is White Noise. This movie was suggested to be by my sister Maggie, and since I couldn't think of any reason not to watch it, I decided to check it out for myself. White Noise is a 2005 film directed by Geoffrey Sax and stars Michael Keaton (Batman), Chandra West, Deborah Kara Unger, and Ian McNeice. In White Noise, architect Jonathan Rivers (Keaton) is distraught after his wife Anna (West) passes away in a tragic accident. One day, a man named Raymond Price (McNeice) tells Rivers that he can hear his late wife Anna through electric voice phenomena or EVP, where supposedly the voices of the dead can be heard through the white noise of static on televisions and radios. Rivers is skeptical at first, but after a mysterious phone call from his late wife's cell phone, he meets up with Price and Rivers gets deeper and deeper into EVP, which produces some rather surprising results. A few notes about this movie, and there will be SPOILERS, so proceed with caution.
- Before I start slamming the movie and its incredibly thin plot full of holes, I'd like to take time to point out some of the things this movie did right. The cinematography was nicely done, and whoever decided on the lighting should be commended, as the settings of the film did more to add suspense than anything else. As Rivers gets deeper and deeper into his EVP studies, the movie becomes darker and darker, and it adds a layer of suspense to the film. The actors, particularly Keaton, weren't too bad. To be honest, I kind of expected Keaton to mail in his performance, but to his credit, he did try his best and he and the other actors almost made this a decent film.
- Now that I've complimented the film, let me start in on some of the problems this film has. One is that the pacing for White Noise is about as slow as Cecil Fielder. It seems as if half the movie is showing Micheal Keaton either sitting on his bed, sitting in front of his computer and television screens, standing in his house, or just staring out into space. Both the director Sax, and the script writer Niall Johnson have done most of their work in television, and to be honest, the story seemed to be a 60 minute TV episode stretched to 90 minutes, with nothing but filler put in for the remaining half hour.
- This movie does not seem to know what direction it wants to go in. The first half of the movie is devoted entirely to Rivers distraught over missing his wife and trying EVP just to communicate with his late wife and get some closure. Then in the second half, Rivers becomes some kind of crusader or something, trying to save people from dying because all of a sudden he can see living people in danger before they die through EVP. This sudden leap in logic is frustrating at the very least, as the movie expects the audience to accept that a relative neophyte at EVP like Rivers not only can see nearly clear images of the dead, but he also gets visions of future events all of a sudden. Um, ok then.
- The person that got a raw deal in this movie was Johnathan's son Mikey. First, his stepmother is missing for three weeks and eventually dies. Then, instead of his father becoming closer to his son, he gets so obsessed with EVP that he becomes neglectful of his son, sending Mikey to live with his mother and largely ignoring him during their weekend visits. Poor kid, even the movie doesn't spend much time on him.
- As I stated before, the actors did their best with the material presented, but other than Rivers and Price, none of the other characters in the film get any development. This is particularly true of Sara (Unger). At first, she's just a customer and friend of Price, but all of a sudden, she becomes a key part of the story with little explanation as to why. After Price passes, Sara becomes close with Rivers, although it's anyone's guess as to why she felt compelled to help Rivers instead of one of the hundred or so other people that Price had met with. As for her role in the ending, well, I'm not going to get into that only to say that it seemed utterly ridiculous.
Overall, the producers of this movie seemed to forget that it was supposed to be a horror movie, so they added in a whole bunch of plot twists that made no sense whatsoever and were quite dull to boot. The last 20 minutes or so of this film made little to no sense, and the climax of the film was disappointing. Yes, the film had a few strengths, and the whole EVP phenomenon could definitely be the basis of a good horror film, but unfortunately, this wasn't a good horror film. Overall, I'd give White Noise a 3.45 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this review or the movie White Noise, then feel free to tell me about them by leaving a comment. Also, if you have an idea for a future review or article, then send it to me via e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com or leave a comment.
- Before I start slamming the movie and its incredibly thin plot full of holes, I'd like to take time to point out some of the things this movie did right. The cinematography was nicely done, and whoever decided on the lighting should be commended, as the settings of the film did more to add suspense than anything else. As Rivers gets deeper and deeper into his EVP studies, the movie becomes darker and darker, and it adds a layer of suspense to the film. The actors, particularly Keaton, weren't too bad. To be honest, I kind of expected Keaton to mail in his performance, but to his credit, he did try his best and he and the other actors almost made this a decent film.
- Now that I've complimented the film, let me start in on some of the problems this film has. One is that the pacing for White Noise is about as slow as Cecil Fielder. It seems as if half the movie is showing Micheal Keaton either sitting on his bed, sitting in front of his computer and television screens, standing in his house, or just staring out into space. Both the director Sax, and the script writer Niall Johnson have done most of their work in television, and to be honest, the story seemed to be a 60 minute TV episode stretched to 90 minutes, with nothing but filler put in for the remaining half hour.
- This movie does not seem to know what direction it wants to go in. The first half of the movie is devoted entirely to Rivers distraught over missing his wife and trying EVP just to communicate with his late wife and get some closure. Then in the second half, Rivers becomes some kind of crusader or something, trying to save people from dying because all of a sudden he can see living people in danger before they die through EVP. This sudden leap in logic is frustrating at the very least, as the movie expects the audience to accept that a relative neophyte at EVP like Rivers not only can see nearly clear images of the dead, but he also gets visions of future events all of a sudden. Um, ok then.
- The person that got a raw deal in this movie was Johnathan's son Mikey. First, his stepmother is missing for three weeks and eventually dies. Then, instead of his father becoming closer to his son, he gets so obsessed with EVP that he becomes neglectful of his son, sending Mikey to live with his mother and largely ignoring him during their weekend visits. Poor kid, even the movie doesn't spend much time on him.
- As I stated before, the actors did their best with the material presented, but other than Rivers and Price, none of the other characters in the film get any development. This is particularly true of Sara (Unger). At first, she's just a customer and friend of Price, but all of a sudden, she becomes a key part of the story with little explanation as to why. After Price passes, Sara becomes close with Rivers, although it's anyone's guess as to why she felt compelled to help Rivers instead of one of the hundred or so other people that Price had met with. As for her role in the ending, well, I'm not going to get into that only to say that it seemed utterly ridiculous.
Overall, the producers of this movie seemed to forget that it was supposed to be a horror movie, so they added in a whole bunch of plot twists that made no sense whatsoever and were quite dull to boot. The last 20 minutes or so of this film made little to no sense, and the climax of the film was disappointing. Yes, the film had a few strengths, and the whole EVP phenomenon could definitely be the basis of a good horror film, but unfortunately, this wasn't a good horror film. Overall, I'd give White Noise a 3.45 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this review or the movie White Noise, then feel free to tell me about them by leaving a comment. Also, if you have an idea for a future review or article, then send it to me via e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com or leave a comment.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Canon Movie Review: Psycho
Since it is Halloween weekend, I have decided to watch a few horror films and review them. When I told my brother Ben about wanting to watch some horror movies this weekend, he suggested a few, and the only one I could remember was the 1960 Alfred Hitchcock film Psycho. While I debated watching the 1998 remake instead, I decided against it and watched the original, which was probably the smart thing to do. The Hitchcock version of Psycho is considered to be not only one of the greatest horror films of all time, but one of the greatest movies period. The movie stars Janet Leigh, Anthony Perkins, Vera Miles, John Gavin, and Mitchell's main villian, Martin Balsam. Psycho was nominated for four Academy Awards, although it did not win any and was not even nominated for best picture. The plot is as follows: an officeworker named Marion Crane (Leigh) is asked to take $40,000 to the bank before leaving for the weekend. Instead of taking it to the bank, she takes it for herself in the hopes of paying her boyfriend Sam Loomis (Gavin) debts so they can wed and live happily ever after. While on here way to meet Sam, a driving rainstorm forces Marion to pull over and stop at the Bates Motel, which proves to be a bad idea. A few notes about this film, and there are SPOILERS ahead.
- If you didn't know better and watched the first 20 minutes or so of this movie, you might think that this movie will be solely about Marion's theft of the money and her attempts to avoid the law. Heck, the whole first part of this movie is all about establishing Marion's character, explaining the motives behind her actions and making her relatable to the audience so the impact of her demise will be felt all the much more.
- During the first part of the film, Marion is suspected by a local cop of something because she fell asleep in her car on the side of the road and acted as if she was in a major hurry, which she was. After the cop follows her to a car lot and watches her drive off with a new car, he becomes more suspicious and starts to question the car dealer. After that, the cop is never shown again, which leaves a rather big plot point unfinished. Normally, this type of thing bothers me, but in this case, well it does bother me a little. I mean, wouldn't it be normal for the PI Arbogast (Balsam) to check with the police forces along Marion's route to see if they had seen her? Or to check where her car might have been? At the very least, we could have got a 30 second scene of Arbogast asking the cop about her whereabouts. Then again, perhaps I'm being a bit too picky.
- While Norman Bates is truly a 'psycho', Marion seemed to go off the deep end herself for a while. After ten years of working at the same office, she all of a sudden goes off and steals 40 grand and takes off to California, all in the hopes of marrying Sam, throwing away her previous life in the hopes of achieving something just a little better. As it turns out, Marion realized her mistake and had planned on returning the money back to the bank on Sunday, thanks in large part to her conversation with the one and only Norman Bates. How ironic, as Norman basically convinced Marion to save her own life only to take it just hours later.
- For its time, Psycho was a very controversial film, what with a naked woman being stabbed to death in a shower and all. One of the most controversial aspects of the film was the use of the word transvestite. Today, that word is tossed around in movies like baseballs are tossed around in the World Series but back then, it was a very big deal. Just goes to show how much things have changed over the years.
- In a film full of top-notch performances, nobody's performance comes close to Anthony Perkins' portrayal of Norman Bates. Perkins did such a great job of portraying Bates that it ended up hurting his career, as he ended up being typecast as a psychotic of some sort. But, as Vince Vaughn proved in the 1998 remake, not everyone can pull off the multi-faceted role of Norman Bates, and very few actors, if any, could have made Norman so psychotic and yet sympathetic the way Perkins does in this film. In contrast, although most of the actors did a fine job, John Gavin's portrayal of Sam Loomis is kind of dull, as he portrays Sam as a one-dimensional bore. Hitchcock himself has been rumored to be upset with Gavin in this movie, and to be honest, I can kind of see why.
At the end of the day, there may have been better movies than Psycho, but you can count on one hand the number of films that had the impact on the movie industry that Psycho had. From its revolutionary cinematography to it's profound use of blood to the haunting score to the establishment of a regular human like Norman Bates as the embodiment of terror, there have been hundreds of films that have borrowed from Psycho in some way. This is the original 'slasher' film, so to speak, and it's also a darn good film. Overall, I'd give Psycho an 8.8 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about Psycho or my review, or you have an idea for a future review, then share those either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
- If you didn't know better and watched the first 20 minutes or so of this movie, you might think that this movie will be solely about Marion's theft of the money and her attempts to avoid the law. Heck, the whole first part of this movie is all about establishing Marion's character, explaining the motives behind her actions and making her relatable to the audience so the impact of her demise will be felt all the much more.
- During the first part of the film, Marion is suspected by a local cop of something because she fell asleep in her car on the side of the road and acted as if she was in a major hurry, which she was. After the cop follows her to a car lot and watches her drive off with a new car, he becomes more suspicious and starts to question the car dealer. After that, the cop is never shown again, which leaves a rather big plot point unfinished. Normally, this type of thing bothers me, but in this case, well it does bother me a little. I mean, wouldn't it be normal for the PI Arbogast (Balsam) to check with the police forces along Marion's route to see if they had seen her? Or to check where her car might have been? At the very least, we could have got a 30 second scene of Arbogast asking the cop about her whereabouts. Then again, perhaps I'm being a bit too picky.
- While Norman Bates is truly a 'psycho', Marion seemed to go off the deep end herself for a while. After ten years of working at the same office, she all of a sudden goes off and steals 40 grand and takes off to California, all in the hopes of marrying Sam, throwing away her previous life in the hopes of achieving something just a little better. As it turns out, Marion realized her mistake and had planned on returning the money back to the bank on Sunday, thanks in large part to her conversation with the one and only Norman Bates. How ironic, as Norman basically convinced Marion to save her own life only to take it just hours later.
- For its time, Psycho was a very controversial film, what with a naked woman being stabbed to death in a shower and all. One of the most controversial aspects of the film was the use of the word transvestite. Today, that word is tossed around in movies like baseballs are tossed around in the World Series but back then, it was a very big deal. Just goes to show how much things have changed over the years.
- In a film full of top-notch performances, nobody's performance comes close to Anthony Perkins' portrayal of Norman Bates. Perkins did such a great job of portraying Bates that it ended up hurting his career, as he ended up being typecast as a psychotic of some sort. But, as Vince Vaughn proved in the 1998 remake, not everyone can pull off the multi-faceted role of Norman Bates, and very few actors, if any, could have made Norman so psychotic and yet sympathetic the way Perkins does in this film. In contrast, although most of the actors did a fine job, John Gavin's portrayal of Sam Loomis is kind of dull, as he portrays Sam as a one-dimensional bore. Hitchcock himself has been rumored to be upset with Gavin in this movie, and to be honest, I can kind of see why.
At the end of the day, there may have been better movies than Psycho, but you can count on one hand the number of films that had the impact on the movie industry that Psycho had. From its revolutionary cinematography to it's profound use of blood to the haunting score to the establishment of a regular human like Norman Bates as the embodiment of terror, there have been hundreds of films that have borrowed from Psycho in some way. This is the original 'slasher' film, so to speak, and it's also a darn good film. Overall, I'd give Psycho an 8.8 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about Psycho or my review, or you have an idea for a future review, then share those either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
Canon Movie Review: The Hills Have Eyes
First off, sorry for the lack of activity the past couple of days, I meant to watch and review this film last night, but circumstances forced me to delay this review another day. Anyway, since this is Halloween weekend, I decided to watch a couple of horror movies this weekend. Normally, I don't really care for horror films, as I have found most of them to be dumb and most of the films sacrifice an interesting story for lots of blood and gore. So, yes, I am biased against horror films in general, but I did try to keep an open mind with this film. The Hills Have Eyes is a 2006 remake of the 1977 Wes Craven film of the same name. Directed by Alexandre Aja (Haute Tension, Piranha 3-D), The Hills Have Eyes stars Ted Levine, Aaron Stanford, Kathleen Quinlan, Vinessa Shaw, and Emilie De Raven, among others. The plot is simple enough, as a family traveling through the desert to San Diego is led astray by a gas station attendant, and take a detour that proves to be a fatal mistake, as the car breaks down and the family is attacked by mutated people who have become mutants thanks to the U.S. Government's nuclear testing in the 50s and 60s, which effected their entire genetic code and now all of the people and their descendants are mutants of some sort. Buckets full of blood and a lot of grisly killings follow. A few notes from this film, and there are SPOILERS, so be careful.
- One of the problems I usually have with films of this genre is that the supposed 'good guys' are oftentimes either annoying or just plain jerks to the point where you root for the monster to kill them as quickly as possible. Well, these people were far from the worst characters in cinematic history, but there were a couple of characters I was annoyed with. Bob the patriarch of the family (played by Levine), comes to mind, as he comes off as a gruff know-it-all who is too damn stubborn for his own good, his son-in-law Doug (Stanford) is a technofile d-bag, while the youngest daughter Brenda (de Raven) spends the entire first half of the movie complaining. As it turns out, the only sympathetic characters in the family, the mother (Quinlan) and the oldest daughter (Shaw) end up dead anyway. Well, that sucks.
- The family has (or had) two dogs, German Shephard named Beauty and Beast. Beauty gets killed off about 10 minutes in, but Beast more than lives up to his name. That dog was just awesome, saving Doug on more than one occasion from getting killed and being a total badass, and yes, it is possible for a dog to be a badass.
- For the first half of the movie or so, there is very little violence or gore, as the director decides to take his time setting everything up, introducing the main characters and their personalities and building suspense. While the story seemed to drag at times, I think this was the right way to go, as by the time the cannibals attack, the audience is fully introduced to the family and the total brutality of their attacks over a quick time period really makes an impact on the viewer. At least it did in my case.
- Yes there is a lot of blood and gore and a bunch of mutated freaks and whatnot. In fact, I felt there may have been a bit too much, because after a while you tend to get desensitized after one grizzly scene after another. By the time Doug stuck a pick axe and some mutant's eye, it just really didn't matter as I had seen a whole bunch of other brutal scenes before that. Also, and this is a spoiler, I don't know much about radiation posining, but I doubt it gives people the ability to survive multiple point-blank shotgun blasts or being right in the middle of a giant gas explosion. Plus, is it me, or did Doug seem to lose a lot of blood throughout his battle with the cannibals, to the point where he would hardly be able to stand. But time and time again, Doug found the strength to do superhuman feats. I guess they expect me to excuse that because of his anger and the fact that he wants to get his baby back, but still.
- In spite of all the blood and gore, the two most disturbing scenes to me didn't have a lot of either of that. The first scene that got to me was the opening credits, where clips of bombs being used in the desert is mixed in with pictures of humans with extreme deformities. It's actually quite disturbing and really sad, especially the kids and babies shown. The second scene was the rape scene involving both Brenda and her sister. That scene, by far, was the most uncomfortable to watch, to the point where seeing a man being burned alive intercut with that scene is almost a relief.
Overall, this film seems to accomplish what it sets out to do, to show a whole bunch of grisly death scenes and scare the crap out of its viewers. The cinematography and the score of the movie aids tremendously in bringing a sense of fear and trepidation to the film, and for the most part the acting was well done. Yes, the plot has a whole bunch of holes in it, but no more than the usual horror fare. I admit that the movie is well done for the most part, but after awhile, all the blood and guts just have no impact whatsoever, and the ambiguous ending does no favors for this film (I'd discuss it some more, but I'd like to keep a little bit of mystery in this film review). If you like your horror films full of grisly scenes, well this one is right up your alley. Overall, I'd give it a 5.2 out of 10, as I can see why others may enjoy this film, but I just couldn't get into it.
Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this review or The Hills Have Eyes in general, then share them by leaving a comment. Also, if you have an idea for a future review, then share those with me either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
- One of the problems I usually have with films of this genre is that the supposed 'good guys' are oftentimes either annoying or just plain jerks to the point where you root for the monster to kill them as quickly as possible. Well, these people were far from the worst characters in cinematic history, but there were a couple of characters I was annoyed with. Bob the patriarch of the family (played by Levine), comes to mind, as he comes off as a gruff know-it-all who is too damn stubborn for his own good, his son-in-law Doug (Stanford) is a technofile d-bag, while the youngest daughter Brenda (de Raven) spends the entire first half of the movie complaining. As it turns out, the only sympathetic characters in the family, the mother (Quinlan) and the oldest daughter (Shaw) end up dead anyway. Well, that sucks.
- The family has (or had) two dogs, German Shephard named Beauty and Beast. Beauty gets killed off about 10 minutes in, but Beast more than lives up to his name. That dog was just awesome, saving Doug on more than one occasion from getting killed and being a total badass, and yes, it is possible for a dog to be a badass.
- For the first half of the movie or so, there is very little violence or gore, as the director decides to take his time setting everything up, introducing the main characters and their personalities and building suspense. While the story seemed to drag at times, I think this was the right way to go, as by the time the cannibals attack, the audience is fully introduced to the family and the total brutality of their attacks over a quick time period really makes an impact on the viewer. At least it did in my case.
- Yes there is a lot of blood and gore and a bunch of mutated freaks and whatnot. In fact, I felt there may have been a bit too much, because after a while you tend to get desensitized after one grizzly scene after another. By the time Doug stuck a pick axe and some mutant's eye, it just really didn't matter as I had seen a whole bunch of other brutal scenes before that. Also, and this is a spoiler, I don't know much about radiation posining, but I doubt it gives people the ability to survive multiple point-blank shotgun blasts or being right in the middle of a giant gas explosion. Plus, is it me, or did Doug seem to lose a lot of blood throughout his battle with the cannibals, to the point where he would hardly be able to stand. But time and time again, Doug found the strength to do superhuman feats. I guess they expect me to excuse that because of his anger and the fact that he wants to get his baby back, but still.
- In spite of all the blood and gore, the two most disturbing scenes to me didn't have a lot of either of that. The first scene that got to me was the opening credits, where clips of bombs being used in the desert is mixed in with pictures of humans with extreme deformities. It's actually quite disturbing and really sad, especially the kids and babies shown. The second scene was the rape scene involving both Brenda and her sister. That scene, by far, was the most uncomfortable to watch, to the point where seeing a man being burned alive intercut with that scene is almost a relief.
Overall, this film seems to accomplish what it sets out to do, to show a whole bunch of grisly death scenes and scare the crap out of its viewers. The cinematography and the score of the movie aids tremendously in bringing a sense of fear and trepidation to the film, and for the most part the acting was well done. Yes, the plot has a whole bunch of holes in it, but no more than the usual horror fare. I admit that the movie is well done for the most part, but after awhile, all the blood and guts just have no impact whatsoever, and the ambiguous ending does no favors for this film (I'd discuss it some more, but I'd like to keep a little bit of mystery in this film review). If you like your horror films full of grisly scenes, well this one is right up your alley. Overall, I'd give it a 5.2 out of 10, as I can see why others may enjoy this film, but I just couldn't get into it.
Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this review or The Hills Have Eyes in general, then share them by leaving a comment. Also, if you have an idea for a future review, then share those with me either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)