Category: DVD

I respect Stephen King. The sheer amount of words that he has let loose from his keyboard over the span of his career is mind-boggling. As someone who stumbles their way through blog posts, I am amazed at his ability to both birth and raise a story, and at the regularity at which he does it. The stories get gobbled up by Hollywood almost as fast as he can write, and the list of adaptations of his work has over 100 items on it. The quality of these adaptations varies greatly. The Mist is helmed by Frank Darabont, the man responsible for two of King’s less-horrific films, The Green Mile and more impressively, The Shawshank Redemption. Having Darabont on board should have been a recipe for success, but The Mist is an adaptation that would have been better left on the page.

As you can gather from the title the movie is about an ominous mist that engulfs a small town. A group of townsfolk out shopping seek shelter inside a small grocery store, and while it isn’t as nice as hiding in a mall, it at least it offers some similar supplies. Are there strange bugs and monsters hidden in the mist? And what will the people do when they’re trapped together with a shrinking hope for survival?

OK, if you have been clicking my links in that previous paragraph you may have already grasped my biggest issue with the movie. It is completely and totally unoriginal. The only thing I will give it points for are some of the creature designs. Everything else is like a checklist of plot points, movie scenes, and characters that have been rehashed time and again. Hero dad trying to protect his kid – check. Angry black man that is bound to become yet another horror movie casualty – check. Crazy person that shows us that the real monsters are the humans cracking under pressure – check. Wimpy, timid character that reveals a stronger personality at an opportune time – check. Characters that inexplicably act mind-bogglingly irrational at the most puzzling times – check. It goes on and on and on. One sequence in the film meant to up the tension and panic of the viewer just left me thinking to myself, “didn’t I see this exact same shit in Aliens?!”

Ah ha, but could this be a case of the movies I’ve seen through the years copying a story that had never been translated onto film? After all, The Mist was first published in 1980. Well, with the exception of the Aliens reference, all the films/stories I linked to came out before, or in the case of The Fog, during 1980. Swing and a miss.

Which brings us to the big talking point of the film – the ending. Darabont is obviously a big enough fan of King’s to know that the endings of his stories are where he seems to struggle the most, and so he decided to write a new ending for the film himself. The ending is supposed to be shocking, make your jaw drop, and get you talking after the credits roll. I suppose it could do that, especially if you’re someone that hasn’t had a chance to watch any classic episodes of The Twilight Zone. Yes, it is a harsh and sudden ending, but only until you stop and think about it. The movie nerd side of me has technical problems with it that take away some of its impact, but I will spare you the details. The logical side of me says, “Well… what exactly was supposed to happen to these people trapped in a mist with weird monsters?” Lastly, the guy that heard an interview with Darabont where he dissed Kubrick’s version of The Shining, and referred to it as cold and mean, is wondering how in the hell his comments jibe with the ending of this movie?

While I understand everything The Mist set out to do, it just didn’t grab me at all. If you haven’t seen some of the movies I’ve linked, or you’re a huge King fan that will geek out to any and all Dark Tower references, then this is worth watching. For anyone else with an itch for watching some bad weather/claustrophobic horror, I think you’d be better served hitting up a double feature of John Carpenter’s The Fog and The Thing.

The Mist @ IMDB

Stephen King @ IMDB (look at it and imagine how nice it must be to sleep on piles of money)

I have to believe that every so often, right before falling off into dreamland, Robert Zemeckis, Roger Avary, and Neil Gaiman laugh their asses off. Why? Because I picture classrooms around the country with teacher’s desks piled high with book reports on Beowulf. In that stack of reports are the poorly worded musings of several students that thought they could pull a fast one. “Why read the poem when I can just watch the whiz-bang movie, and poof… I’m done?!” Then I see the teacher grading papers with a red pen held loosely in their tired hand. They slouch, send a hand to their brow and mumble, “Nooooo… the dragon baby of Beowulf and Angelina Jolie didn’t come looking for him after Hannibal Lecter dove out a window.”

So why did they change the story? Well according to the supplemental material on the DVD, they felt that since the story has an oral tradition of being passed on, it would naturally have changed over the years, and the movie was there chance to tell their take on the hero legend. In doing so they’ve tried to connect the unconnected dots of the poem, which in turn twists Beowulf, himself, towards the role of a flawed anti-hero. In reality, I think they were just trying to find something cool to animate that had swords, dragons, and a bit of legitimacy (I’m looking at you Eragon.)

The animation itself is impressive, but still a little unsettling (read about the Uncanny Valley.) The direction by Zemeckis, while quick to thrill, often made me feel like I was on a 3D ride first, and watching a movie second. I realize that when the movie was released, it was offered in 3D format for theaters that supported it, but repeated scenes with swords/spears poking out at the audience made me feel like I had time-warped back to the 1980’s.

The other major gripe that I have with the film is the fine line it tries to walk to maintain its PG-13 rating. I saw the director’s cut of the film on DVD, and while it was quite bloody, it went out of its way to intentionally block the genitalia of nude characters in a very distracting and juvenile way. During a major fight sequence it is established that Beowulf will do battle in the nude. When Grendel storms onto the scene, looking appropriately grotesque, Beowulf springs into action and in something right out of Austin Powers, has his groin repeatedly blocked out of frame by various, perfectly placed objects. Why would I be focused on Beowulf’s animated junk? Because just like the Austin Powers scene points out, when you go out of your way to cover it, like they did with a symbolic sword stuck in a table, you force the viewer to notice it. I get why they had to dance around the issue for the PG-13 rating, but if you’re that worried why not slap a loincloth on him or just toss the PG-13 rating out the window? If you can show the graphic dismemberment of a monster as well as some of its human victims, what harm are animated nipples and balls?

Overall the movie lands squarely in the average category for me. The creepy doll-eye faces often kept me from feeling any sort of attachment to the characters. Thankfully they gathered a pretty good collection of voices together, led by Ray Winstone as Beowulf, to overcome the staleness of the expressions. When not tightly focused on the faces of the characters, I found myself quite impressed by the action sequences, and liked the fact that they were willing to let the “camera” move around in 3D space. The reworked story is a little thin, but considering the source material, I suppose they did the best they could in trying to come up with a cohesive plot. Despite its 3D ride feel, I can’t deny that this is a bit of a step forward towards the goal of delivering realistic looking human characters in an animated world. Albeit a ball-less step, but a step nonetheless.

Beowulf @ IMDB

Let me get this out of the way first:

Bottle Rocket > Rushmore > The Life Aquatic > The Royal Tenenbaums

I know that most Wes Anderson fans tend to rank the the Tenenbaums above Life Aquatic, and some list it as their favorite Wes Anderson movie ever. As for me, I just couldn’t get into the movie. Rather than get washed over by the quixotic feeling of offbeat sadness mixed with shimmering glints of hope and humor that his films tend to exude, Tenenbaums left me just feeling low. The people in the movie are supremely miserable, and the craziness that takes place in the movie just felt off. I haven’t seen the movie in quite some time, so who knows how I’d feel about it now.

So what about The Darjeeling Limited? It seems like Wes Anderson is a director that really enjoys playing with his cinematic toys. The boat set he used in Aquatic is proof of that. In Darjeeling he takes that boat set and amps it up even further with his musty, claustrophobic train set. He pops his usual cast of oddly confident, yet emotionally flawed characters on the train while it chugs through India. While they’re physically on the train, mentally and spiritually they’re collectively retracing the experience of losing their father. Their lives are filled with trinkets of their deceased dad, they reference him in conversation with each other, and they even go so far as carrying his full set of luggage. OK, Wes… I think we get the symbolism.

Even though he may hound us with his symbolism, a Wes Anderson film lives and dies with its characters and their interactions. The three brothers the movies focuses on manage to have a nice chemistry together. Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzman, and Adrien Brody do a good job of playing off each other, and each one of them manages to express a different trait they inherited from their parents. The rest of the cast is the usual colorful blend of background characters that you’d expect from Anderson. Maybe more so than an any of his other films, the setting is also a big character. The countryside of India, often used as a symbol itself for finding spiritual peace, rolls by and guides the characters through their journey. I did like that when the characters finally hit their moment of clarity, it is not via a scenic view, a tourist trap temple, or some deep trance, but rather as an unexpected accident that finds its way into their path.

So where does it stand for me in the list of Wes Anderson films? I would place it right behind Life Aquatic. While the movie does drag and wander a bit more than it should, which is especially rough since we can make a good guess at where the characters are going long before they get there, it still has the sly quirkiness present throughout Anderson’s work. Ultimately, I’ll gladly take any of his films over 90% or more of the cinematic dung that is thrown out for us to feed on.

For those of you that just like to skip to the end:

Bottle Rocket > Rushmore > The Life Aquatic > The Darjeeling Limited > The Royal Tenenbaums

The Darjeeling Limited @ IMDB

There is no need to make this a long review, so lets get right to it. I am a horror movie fan. I wouldn’t say I was a super crazy fan, but growing up in the age of the endless horror sequels left me with a lot of choices when it was time to rent a video. American made horror films in recent years have been on a steady decline. It has reached such a low point that the industry is now a remake factory, taking the films of Asia and Europe and redoing them in English so that teenagers won’t be inconvenienced at the theater and have to read subtitles. Now thanks to companies like Michael Bay’s Platinum Dunes, we can watch churned out remakes out of older horror films for the discriminating moviegoer that can’t get enough of quick edits and shaky cam.

All the rehashing made me take notice when I heard about a small film named Hatchet. After a little research I found out that it was a new take on the backwoods slasher films, ala Friday the 13th. However, rather than played with a straight face, it goes about its hacking and slashing with a tongue firmly planted in its cheek. Yes, think of it like Scream, except without the snappy dialogue and tense phone call sequences. If you’re wondering why I spent a paragraph telling you about the state of American horror, it was really just to eat up some space before I told you that the movie Hatchet sucks. It never really works out to be funny or scary. What you get from the movie is mix of flat jokes, overly juicy gore effects, and the look of a slickly produced Troma film. If you wanted to see what one of the lesser known Murray brothers is up to, or you were a fan of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and/or Angel and wanted to see the tits of the girl that played Harmony, then maybe this is for you. If you’re a fan of Saw or any film made by Eli Roth or Rob Zombie, then you’ll probably find this movie just peachy since you have awful taste in horror films anyway… there, I said it.

I’ll spend the rest of this review pushing a movie that covers much of the same ground as Hatchet, Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon. Shot in a part mockumentary/part movie style, the story is about a group of college students making a documentary about a man that wants to show them the behinds the scenes life of a killer that comes straight out of a slasher movie. Where Hatchet falls on its face, Behind the Mask succeeds in its mixing of horror and comedy. We see the story from the eyes of a man who shows us the ins and outs of planning his legend, and his blunt openness about what he does gives off both genuine humor, and an unsettling anxiousness. I should note that the more familiar you are with the conventions of the slasher movie genre, the more you will take away from the film.

Hatchet @ IMDB

Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon @ IMDB

To those outside the world of comic books, Neil Gaiman is a name that would raise few eyebrows. As a novelist and comic book writer, he has stayed largely outside of the realm of Hollywood. Last year featured the release of two of his biggest movie projects to date. He co-wrote the screenplay for Beowulf and saw his the film adaptation of Stardust finally hit theaters across the globe.

Even though I would go so far as to claim myself a fan of Gaiman’s work, I had never read Stardust. I went into the film only knowing that Matthew Vaughn had left the 3rd X-Men film and decided to make this movie instead. After finishing the movie, I think he made a wise decision (if you guess that I was not a fan of X-Men 3, then give yourself a gold star.)

Before I continue I think it should be mention that if you saw a preview for the movie during its theatrical run then you probably still have no idea what the film is like. In our current age of cinema, recent fantasy films have been epic tales about the fate of the world, all played to complete seriousness. Stardust is a movie that adds a bit of humor, sometimes very dark humor, to the traditional mix of witches, princes, and heroes. Lately, when a movie has resorted to that tactic it can easily be passed off as a kids movie, which I can certainly say that Stardust is not.

The film gives us the basic fantasy premise with all the trimmings: An eager young hero (Charlie Cox), a beautiful heroine naive to the danger that stalks her (Claire Danes), a powerful witch craving youth (Michelle Pfeiffer), and a dark prince willing to do anything to claim his throne (Mark Strong.) If you know your storytelling then I am willing to bet you have a good idea on how it all works out in the end. Knowing endings is nothing knew, and in fantasy, much like other genres, it is all about how you get there. This is where Stardust throws in some quirks like… a one night stand, encouraged (and comically celebrated) fratricide, and a twist on the stereotypical Sea Captain archetype.

But what is it about? You have a small stone wall separating two towns. On one side is a real-world, quaint English village, aptly named Wall. On the other side is a bustling world of fantasy known as Stormhold. One night, a shooting star passes over the sky, and sets in a motion a race by three people, each with their own reason to get their hands on the fallen celestial prize. Two of the people dwell within Stormhold, and the other is a young man from the village who has more of a connection with the land on the other side than he may know. Who will reach the star? What is the star? Why do they need the star? What… do you really want me to ruin it?

After I had reached the end of the tale and people were off living happily ever after, I found myself quite satisfied with what I had seen. I thought the movie managed to juggle being fun, sweet, and dark quite nicely. Its rather simple story moves along at a very brisk pace, and even tries its best to throw in some twists and turns to make you think that perhaps this is that one time that things won’t work out in the end. The idea of an adventure being just beyond a wall is something that appeals to me.

However, it is not without fault. The biggest negative that I could give it is that I found it to be a bit forgettable. As enjoyable as it was, it will never get out of the long shadow cast by The Princess Bride. The balancing act between the comedy and drama that I enjoyed, is bound to turn some people off. I speak from experience on this criticism. After viewing the movie, I ended up spending a fair amount of time trying to defend it from a friend that hated it with such passion that you would think that the director had personally pissed in his popcorn. His distaste for the comedy is justifiable. In prepping for this review I found out that the screenwriters that adapted the story added whimsy and humor to it in order to offset the violence and sex of the original story. I think it is a bit of sad statement when we can find more mature material in the form of storybook/comic book than on film, but that’s a blog post for another time.

What can I say? I am a sucker for a whimsical tale… and comedic fratricide… can’t forget about that.

Stardust @ IMDB