It's still playing in my area, if it is in yours, go and see it!
Statistics: Posted by Landerpurex — March 19th, 2012, 1:30 am
]]>
Statistics: Posted by Phantomrose — March 9th, 2012, 1:12 pm
]]>
]]>
I... what?
I am resigned to the fact that films will never be made with the art, care, and passion as those in the past. That's not to say that there are no more good movies being made.
And it's funny you talk about being harsh on cinema, I read a review by Jean-Luc Godard today and he told the director that his cinematography was ugly because his movie was awful, and that he didn't know how to make movies because he didn't know what they were anymore. He did this under a pseudonym. I wonder why?
So yeah...politics. An overly negative review of the wrong film could ruin a potential critic.
Statistics: Posted by Landerpurex — February 6th, 2012, 6:56 pm
]]>
Nice review, Lander. I may see this. I may not. It's all a big mystery.
Statistics: Posted by Spirographed — February 6th, 2012, 6:42 pm
]]>
]]>
Statistics: Posted by Landerpurex — February 6th, 2012, 7:31 am
]]>
]]>
Rating: 7/10
This was a good movie, not a great one. It did its job, it scared me (badly) at times, and there were very great technical things happening with this movie. However, it was inconsistent and Radcliffe's acting was just awful.
This movie is pretty typical as far as horror stories go, it's set in early 1900s England. The main character Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe) plays a lawyer or paralegal, hard up for a break. He is sent by his firm to a sinister house near a small town, where the spirit of a woman terrorizes the town and the house. His son and their nanny are supposed to join him at the house after some time. Don't be fooled by the PG-13 rating, I learned with Insidious that underrated movies can be terrifying.
The opening scene of this movie was literally the most technically sound, and perhaps the best scene in the movie. While any opening scene should be great, it shouldn't be the best scene in the film. We're shown three young girls playing in an upstairs room, and nothing seems to be wrong. After a few moments, one of them drops their little teacup. It shatters. They then get up and advance towards the three windows, one of the trampling the teapot on the way. Here we have many good things in the cinematography and editing. Short takes. Shades of montage. Short jump cuts. This serves to confuse us, and it works very well. The three girls step up to the sill simultaneously, and jump out the windows. Then we're taken to Arthur's house, shocked by the previous scene and left with many questions.
The worst thing about this film, I felt, were its inconsistencies. It's easy to see that the aforementioned scene was meticulously cared for during production, whereas the rest of the film only shows glimmers of that care. As I said previously, Radcliffe's acting is terrible. He never shows any emotion, both when he realizes his wife has died in childbirth, nor at the end of the film when he is reunited with his son. This movie didn't call for him to strive for any awards, most of the time Arthur runs through the house chasing various noises. I was disappointed that when the script called for a little acting, he didn't deliver. And this took me away from the movie.
The movie delivers through jump-scares that we've come accustomed to with modern horror cinema. The cinematography is sound, with several first person shots that round corners, raising suspense. Of course, the scares don't come when we expect them. Moreover, there are several scenes in this film with these creepy, awkward, grimy toys that often act on their own. This was perhaps the most unsettling thing about the film. Picture a porcelain clown toy from that era, that contorts itself and ends with a close-up shot of his grinning face. Don't see this (or do) if you're afraid of clowns. *shudder*
Along those same lines, there is a scene where Arthur is (you guessed it) checking a noise he heard in the house. He's using a candle, and upon entering the room, there are closeups of the aforementioned toys, and the light of the candle is reflected in their eyes. It's moving with Arthur, and subsequently, moving in the eyes of the toys, making it seem as if they are following his movement. There are similar scenes to this, such as one where Arthur sees the reflection of the ghost in a mirror, but when he turns to check, she is gone. Subtle tricks like these make this movie a positive experience.
The house is a major star in the film, as it should be. It is sinister, old, foreboding, dusty, cobwebby, and simply everything a haunted house should be. There is a cemetery on the grounds that adds to the feeling. In addition to that, there is a lone wooden cross in the front yard where a little boy died when he sank into the swamp.
When we are first introduced to the house, Arthur goes downstairs, exploring. His job in the place is to make sure there are no more official papers in the home and to try and find the owner's last will and testament. When he enters the room, there is a newborn baby crow on the floor. He picks the baby up and puts it in the nest nearby. As soon as he does so, he is attacked by mama bird. I enjoyed this scene, it seemed an homage to the horror of yore, movies like The Omen and Hitchcock's The Birds, where birds figure heavily in the horror.
Additionally, this scene bears a stark parallel with the final moments of the movie. Clever foreshadowing, or heavy-handed symbolism? Go see the movie and find out!
In short, I really enjoyed this movie, both at the surface level of modern horror and as an amateur film student. Its inconsistencies are many, but the great scenes it offers do redeem it. It is scary in the same way that other modern horror films are, and is easily enjoyable by anyone that loves the horror genre. I recommend this film.
Statistics: Posted by Landerpurex — February 6th, 2012, 12:05 am
]]>