As a subcategory of the horror genre, the exorcism film does not have the best reputation. For every The Exorcist, there are a dozen Posessed’s and Beyond the Door’s. Yet, when done well, there is rarely something as profoundly [...]
The most obvious update to the original formula is that Lurie moves the story from the English countryside to the American south. When Hollywood writer David Sumner (James Marsden) moves with his actress wife, Amy (Kate Bosworth) back to her hometown of Blackwater, Mississippi, he finds the town to be a far cry from Los Angeles. Filled with a first-name basis population that farms its youth for football athletes, then sets them out to pasture as manual laborers, the town could be any plucked from the deep south. A safe haven in the real world, “We all trust each other here,” Amy says. “We don’t even lock our doors.”
The viewer is smarter, of course, and not only those that know the original story. When David attempts to make a friendly gesture to the friends of Amy’s past by hiring a roofing crew headed by her ex, Charlie (the marvelous Alexander Skarsgård), he gets more than shingles. Tension builds as the crew repeatedly takes advantage of his kindness, and pays particular, uncomfortable attention to Amy.
Lurie paces his film fantastically, allowing it to unfold slowly with a careful building disquiet. Blackwater is bathed in a buttery light, and the roofers constantly clothed in autumn colors of red and orange and brown, bent in physical and violent action, from hammering nails to hunting to draining cans of beer. David, instead, is adorned in crisp white, and the only thing he hammers is his keyboard.
Playing opposite, Bosworth’s wooden Amy is unsatisfying, but Marsden is an inspired choice. The traditional rom-com and superhero star slips into the oblivious and brutal role of David seamlessly, allowing the viewer to simultaneously disagree with and root for him.
By the time the tension escalates to its gory climax, Lurie’s Straw Dogs is morally black and white. What’s missing here is the controversial ambiguity of the original, where the famous rape scene posed the question: Did she like it? In Lurie’s version, the answer is clear, and in that he misses one of the interesting elements of the original. In a world where manhood can be defined so subjectively, where strength and violence are valued over intelligence and financial success, what other perceptions can be skewed?
The avoidance of a real treatment of the rape is intriguing, and follows a mainstream trend on screen. Where modern film is increasingly explicit with violence, language, and sex, rape remains a taboo subject. This was highlighted recently in criticism of HBO’s Game of Thrones, which omitted many of the rapes included in the novels. In general, film rapes are either hinted at or threatened rather than committed; if committed, they are largely off screen.
Thus, while Lurie’s version may one-up the original with explicit gore and violence, it loses the controversial nature that horrified and intrigued viewers long after the credits rolled in 1971. Lurie’s Straw Dogs is a tight, tense thriller that will leave theaters speckled with gnawed off fingernails, but when it’s over, it will send many home to lock their doors, and watch the football game on TV.
A remake of Sam Peckinpah’s original psychological thriller, Straw Dogs promises an exciting plunge into rural America with a hint of psychotic violence. The combo of a great cast (Alexander Skarsgard, Kate Bosworth, James Marsden, and The Shield’s fantastic Walton Goggins) and a simple plot–a couple moves to the countryside and falls victim to local harassment and brutality–should create a project with real bite and a profoundly disturbing aftertaste. Skarsgard, in particular, will be a pleasure to watch in a role that lets him fully assume the hostility of his stature and features without any romantic ropes tying him down.
A promising young stuntdriver gets in over his head with an organized crime circuit. Go see it!
While Sarah Jessica Parker may not have always been the favorite lady on Sex and the City, most lovers of the show will squeal at the chance to see the actress on screen again. Most were even willing to forgive her for Did You Hear About the Morgans? (and let’s face it, for Sex and the City 2). But this film might really be pushing it. Casting SJP as a working mom juggling children, a successful career, and all the other stuff women just have to do, might be entertaining if SJP can put aside Carrie and assume the new role. But being famous for a woman hated and loved for an acute narcissism may prove difficult training for a moralistic film about priorities. One thing can probably be expected: good shoes.
It is difficult to know how to react when the credits roll after Drive. Applause for a tight and generally well crafted film? Disappointment, that the excitement and action has concluded? Or dance, commemorating the film’s fantastic soundtrack? One thing is certain: you’ll walk out with a feeling of contentment and satisfaction rarely awarded by film. Because if there is one thing that Drive is, it’s a good movie.
One of Drive’s greatest strengths is its commitment to a strong, straightforward plot. The Driver (Ryan Gosling, whose highly anticipated return to the silver screen has not failed to surpass expectations) is employed performing vehicle stunts for Hollywood while moonlighting as getaway wheels for petty criminals and a mechanic at a local garage. The apathetic balance of his life is thrown askew when he gets in over his head with an organized crime circuit.
Having set up this plot line, the film then leaves the plot to essentially solve itself. Instead of preoccupying itself with clever twists or richly layered dialogue, the film steps back to place it in context. Director Nicholas Winding Refn, who most recently directed the spare, stoic Viking drama Valhalla Rising, allows the Driver’s story to unfold upon the massive backdrop of Los Angeles. This is an alternate universe,existing in quiet dichotomy with the glittery world of Hollywood. The city Drive portrays is slick pavement, dim streetlights, and shadows. No one speaks because no one needs to. A cracked smile, a blink, that is the currency of communication.
Winding Refn uses Los Angeles as a character in itself. From scenes of sunshine and water in the polluted L.A. River to a tense scene where the Driver uses overpasses to hide from a police helicopter, the geography of Los Angeles is essential to the action and plot development. In particular, the lighting is used purposefully to evoke moods, surging warmth in scenes of romance, and cold whites and glaring reds with violence. The streets are brimming with the sleek forms of cars, and these cars are not the passive vehicles of action from standard film chases; instead they hold the same energy and character as a shuddering stallion. Frequently, the physical actions of the car mirror the Driver’s mood, stopping when he is surprised, accelerating with his rage.
In at times comedic and villainous roles, Bernie (Albert Brooks) and Nino (Ron Perlman) are bursting with menace while still appearing natural, realistic.The violence in turn is very careful, with tasteful but explicit gore. As the film progresses and the Driver delves deeper into the treacherous waters of Bernie and Nino’s world, the tension gains momentum and accelerates to a fantastic and bloody climax.
But for all its simplicity, Drive is not one, long car chase. Underneath all of the blood, the gasoline, and the tire marks, there is an interesting view of Hollywood, and the effects of a world where the artificial lies in bed with the dangerously tangible. The Driver mainstreams as a stunt driver,performing car rollovers like circus tricks. We see the expenses put into the faux-violence, the faux-danger, but what of the cost? Drive shows us what happens when the artificial and the tangible bleed into each other, as the line between film and reality blurs. While the Driver may accomplish a safe rollover on screen, in real life, rollovers and fights and guns end in death. And the good guys don’t always walk away at the end.
This retrospective view of film continues to the last scene, with a Lynchian ending that leaves the viewer guessing, and more importantly, wanting more. One thing’s for sure, if the Driver wants to go for another, we call shotgun.
In the landscape of horror, rarely are the scenarios as probable as that presented in Steven Soderbergh’s Contagion. While the concept of a brute that wears human skin for clothes and sleeps with his chainsaw is terrifying, and the idea of fairy-like creepers living in the fireplace might make one’s hair stand on end, seldom does something settle in such a quiet cool as the very realistic concept of an epidemic that kills indiscriminately and pushes aside all feeble human defenses. This chilling message is what Contagion attempts to communicate, but unfortunately, the film’s message is not as infectious as its subject.
 |
| Marion Cotillard takes a turn as an epidemiologist. |
One would assume that with an ensemble of such time-tested actors, the film’s emotional core would hold the strength. Instead, the actors struggle to pack sensation into largely stale dialogue. While Damon manages to force in some endearing earnestness as he protects his daughter, the other storylines are overshadowed by the vastness of the threat. As a result, many of the twists and jabs–in particular, Law’s cheeky narcissist–smack of phoniness, like a doctor attempting to make a joke while delivering a cancer diagnosis.
Perhaps this is because the antagonist of the film is so much more developed and fully realized than any of the characters. The opening of the film shows us the progress of Beth’s succumbing to the disease. Paltrow gives a disturbingly fantastic performance as she experiences brutal seizures at home, and the hospital. There is no question as to how deadly this threat is.
The result is a feeling of suspicion, like that felt while watching news coverage. Clearly, they aren’t showing us the full picture. There are bodies in the back room that we aren’t seeing, and there are children crying somewhere that we can’t hear.
The choice to release the film on the weekend of September 11th’s tenth anniversary is interesting, as it, surely deliberately, pairs the one-time horror of a devastating event that left so many innocents dead with the motiveless brutality of an epidemic. However, this comparison is most felt in the draw of the film; just as millions watched and rewatched video of the planes hitting the Twin Towers, the viewer watched the contagion’s spread not out of personal connection to those affected, but rather out of a recoiling horror and fascination.
Contagion’s great flaw, then, is that it attempts to combine two films into one. On the one hand, it is an exciting study of a potential scenario that has left the human race devastated, and could do so easily at any time. On the other hand, it is a treatment of the personal tolls–familial, professional, moral, economic–that such an event would take. Unfortunately, it does not successfully meld or juxtapose the two sides, resulting in a project that seems constantly uncomfortable with its current storyline.
The result? Walking out of the theater, viewers may not be filled with the intended cold fear, but they certainly aren’t touching the banister on their way out.
As sources of horror go, nothing is quite as profoundly terrifying as the concept of a plague. This is largely rooted in the knowledge that humanity has fallen prey to the devastation of a contagion, such as the Bubonic Plague that is estimated to have wiped out up to 60% of Europe’s population. Now, Steven Soderbergh’s Contagion adapts the horror of an indiscriminate scourge, touching on themes of vulnerability and exposure. No one is safe. With a cast that includes Kate Winslet, Matt Damon, Jude Law, Marion Cotillard, Gwyneht Paltrow, Laurence Fishburne, and Dmetri Martin (what?), this promises to be one hell of a ride to the Doctor’s office.
The fact that viewers are still so obsessed with fighting movies grates on me. If you want to convince me otherwise, you don’t have to explain to me about how it represents a primal state or has high stakes or speaks to something deep inside the human spirit. You just have to pluck that hard-headed brit from Inception and put him on a poster shirtless. Color me interested. Still, Warrior’s plot is less than colorful, actually described as an “underdog” story. Perhaps the fact that the film focuses Mixed Martial Arts, a fighting style that centers itself in meditation and body awareness, will give it another dimension. But I think the real core strength of this film will rest on the brawny shoulders of Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton (remember him? From Kinky Boots?)
At first look, this film appears to be the buck-teethed lovechild of Boogie Nights and Happy Gilmore. If you think that parentage might put out something a little less than attractive, you’re right. But with parentage like this, Bucky is born to be...OK. While the trailer stinks of the “every good part of this movie is in the ads” conundrum, a look at the IMDB page lists character names like Miles Deep and Dick Shadow. If it supplies the right sly wit with its crude humor, it just might be worth $1 to rent it from Redbox in six months.
This film fest darling is coming to limited theaters this weekend, documenting the journey of a group of friends that enlist in the army in hopes of making money and earning their college tuition, only to discover the real horror of modern war in Afghanistan. With a trailer that combines a Garden State soundtrack melancholy with grainy images, this already feels like the kind of movie that’s mean to the viewer’s self confidence. A documentary to hurt, and remind. If its laurels say anything, this is worth a watch and a good think sesh.
Like Crazy
Out 10/28/2011
This trailer makes me want to cry. It makes everyone want to cry. Life is full of scraped knees, broken hearts, and missed opportunities. So what if it’s a cliche, it’s still true. Don’t deny it. Just cry.
Straw Dogs
Out 9/16/2011
Because just writing “Alexander Skarsgard” over and over again isn’t adequate commentary, I’ll note that this movie is a remake of an original that my boyfriend describes as too good of a movie to remake. This trailer’s got everything it needs to fill seats, with the menace of a film that’s not afraid to break unspoken rules and the casting to back that up. Alexander Skarsgard Alexander Skarsgard Alexander Skarsgard Alexander Skarsgard Alexander Skarsgard Alexander Skarsgard Alexander Skarsgard Alexander Skarsgard Alexander Skarsgard...
Contagion
Out 9/9/2011
Contagion has been billed as the ultimate horror movie for the modern world. You can be pretty sure you won’t get mauled by a Great White Shark or attacked by a Vampire that looks like Colin Farrel, but you can’t avoid touching things. Add to that the freaking incredible cast (thank you, Kate Winslet, for coming back), made possible by the fact that each actor had to spend only about 5 days on set, and you’ve got an A-lister germfest even worth forgiving some of the hokiest credits ever seen in a trailer.
Shark Night 3D
Out 9/2/2011
Sharks! In a lake! “This is insane! It’s a lake!”
‘Nuff said.
Atrocious
Technically out 8/17/2011, hopefully in theaters nearby soon!
Cue whining about how it’s just a remake of The Blair Witch Project. Atrocious is billed as “2011’s Answer to Paranormal Activity,” and it appears to have all the necessary traits and more. That means gritty, shaky handicam, haunted house evidence, and a few teasing shots of blood, blood, blood. There’s a reason they keep remaking The Blair Witch Project, it’s because it work...ed. And it will work again. Maybe this time. Maybe.
The Thing
Out 10/14/2011
This snowy horror has all the trademarks of blockbuster horror that won’t quite deliver on its promise. Still, the icy isolation worked as a suspense technique in that one X-Files episodes, and I want to believe it will work again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
