The final Oscar-nominated film for Best Animated Picture that I want to look at this month is 2018's 'Isle of Dogs'. This one was nominated alongside Pixar's 'Incredibles 2', Disney's 'Ralph Breaks the Internet', and another under-the-radar anime called 'Mirai'. Everything lost to 'Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse', which I never saw coming, but loved. Truth be told, I thought this might take it, based on the style and the director's name alone. It was awesome seeing Spidey win, but this had to be a very close second that year - even with Disney and Pixar in the running. Taking place in the fictional city of Megasaki, Japan, the story opens up with an outbreak of canine influenza, risking a contagious effect towards humans. As a result, Mayor Kenji Kobayashi (Kunichi Nomura) ratifies a decree, banishing all dogs to Trash Island. Kobayashi's opponent, Professor Watanabe (Akira Ito), mentions that he is very close in finding a cure for the canine disease, but despite this, the plan goes through, banishing the first dog. The dog in question is Spots (Liev Schreiber); the once bodyguard of a 12-year-old orphan named Atari Kobayashi, who is the mayor's nephew and ward. Six months later, the island is full of dogs, earning it the nickname "Isle of Dogs". Here, we meet our five lead pooches, Chief (Bryan Cranston), Rex (Edward Norton), King (Bob Balaban), Duke (Jeff Goldblum), and Boss (Bill Murray). One day, Atari hijacks a plane, flies it to the island, crash-lands, and meets these dogs. Soon enough, they somewhat all understand each other, and it's revealed that Atari has come to the island in search of Spots. The dogs help Atari on his search, they face certain dangers and obstacles along the way, and much of the story involves Chief's character development as opposed to the boy in search of his dog. Being a life-long stray, Chief learns a few things about what it means to have a human in his life. Meanwhile, Professor Watanabe continues to develop a cure in the hopes of bringing man's best friend back around. However, some suspect a conspiracy to get rid of all of the dogs, namely American exchange student, Tracy Walker (Greta Gerwig), a member of a pro-dog activist group, wanting to expose the possibly corrupt mayor. Let's just say with the way things are in the world right now considering disease and various conspiracies, it might not be the best thing to check out for the time being. On the other hand, I have to say it's still a pretty damn good movie that gets every emotion going - especially if you're an animal lover of any kind (especially dogs). There's a lot to like about this movie, starting with this particular Wes Anderson style of stop-motion animation (the other being 'Fantastic Mr. Fox'). I appreciate its overall simplicity, but things like individual hairs moving in the "wind" are really cool details other stop motion movies never seem to utilize. The style gives the film an almost wild feeling, which makes all the more sense, considering what it's depicting. Meanwhile, the humans of the movie look a lot like plastic action figures, which may or may not mean something. There's far less detail to the human figures, almost as if the film pushes the dogs to the forefront stylistically as well as story-wise. Another detail that makes this one a bit of a gem is the voice talent. Other than who I've mentioned, we also have an ex show-dog named Nutmeg (Scarlett Johansson), and two sort of seer dogs, Jupiter (F. Murray Abraham) and Oracle (Tilda Swinton) who sees "visions" through the TV, allowing her to predict things like the weather. We also have head "cannibal" dog, Gondo (Harvey Keitel) and the interpreter (Frances McDormand) who narrates much of the story through news reels Last but not least, and perhaps most interesting, Yoko Ono playing assistant scientist Yoko Ono. She doesn't pop up until near the end, so there would be a potential spoiler in her character's purpose. On top of the voice talent, Anderson also made the decision to have the Japanese actors here speak in their native tongue, without translating much of it to English. Meanwhile, the dogs speak perfect English. It's interesting that it feels somewhat like we're viewing the "mainland" story as an outsider, unable to understand the language completely. However, when it comes to the dogs, we understand them completely. It makes me wonder if it was our of respect for Japanese culture, to be more in touch with our animal friends, or a little bit of both. Either way, the film was a joy to watch, being both fascinating in its style and execution, and funny when it comes to that Anderson sense of humor. 4/5
0 Comments
This one comes to us from the Oscar nomination list of 2018, which included nominations for 'Ferdinand', 'The Boss Baby', 'The Bread Winner' and Pixar's 'Coco' taking the win. I didn't see everything on the list, despite the fact that it would have been my first Annual Oscar Special. However, I do remember saying that by the looks of things, if 'Coco' ever had a real competitor, it had to be the groundbreaking 'Loving Vincent'; a beautifully animated mystery film, hand-painted all the way through by 100+ painters. It was a very big deal as far as the industry goes, but its brilliance has since been swept under the rug. The film takes place one year after the death of Vincent van Gogh (Robert Gulaczyk), who died two days after attempting suicide by shooting himself in the chest. A postman named Joseph's (Chris O'Dowd) son, Armand (Douglas Booth), is tasked with delivering Van Gogh's last letter to his brother, Theo (Cezary Lukaszewicz). Finding the suicide suspicious, Joseph sends Armand to Paris, and as Armand reluctantly agrees, he ends up interviewing most of the people who knew Van Gogh, each with their own take on the subject to tell. This essentially ends up being 'Citizen Kane' or 'Courage Under Fire' as far as its plot goes - but the artistry of the animation is truly unique and frankly kind of breathtaking. This is a film that splits itself into two in a certain way. Before actually sitting down to watch it, I only ever saw this as something that was probably good for what it was, but sort of artsy-fartsy all the same. I can like artsy stuff, but I'm also very particular about some. I really don't like movies like 'Tree of Life' because I think they're just too much, but at the same time, somehow I love movies like 'Waking Life', which some might consider more to take than the prior. I suppose one could say my taste lies more in "dream-like" stuff that can really take me away, and this does that in spades. But the other side of the coin tells a really cool story. This could have been done without the overlaying animation and still have been really good; like potentially up for a Best Picture Oscar that year good. Perhaps what I found most interesting about this movie is how much it made me think about "art" in general. As things unfold, and you see the brush strokes flow, the moods are set in such a way that the realms of canvas paintings and cinematography cross over and you are watching a painting come to life, quite literally. The stylization of the art is, of course, very reminiscent of Van Gogh's work as well, giving a whole new appreciation for the artist - not to sell the story short, of course. As mentioned before, though, this really is a dream-like movie. It's one of those films where when the credits started rolling, it almost felt like waking up - not because I fell asleep during a "boring" movie, but because I was that far sucked into the film's world. Very few movies have accomplished that, but if they ever do, I can't help but praise their accomplishment, even if others don't get the same effect. Last but not least, this is a film that familiarizes a general audience with the consequences of having certain mental health problems. When you learn more and more about what Van Gogh was going through in his life, you feel more towards his character and see him less as "that crazy painter guy who once gifted his ear". It does get a little intense at times, but it's certainly not a movie that tries too hard to pull on the heartstrings. It's a good, proper dramatic flick with a great cast of performers, and an even better cast of artists. This is altogether one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen, speaking as someone who thrived in art class in school and learned that every painting tells a story. This is one painting that does it in the literal sense, and does it extremely well. Cheers to directors Dorota Kobiela and Hugh Welchman who's work I am certain to check out further! 5/5 Released back in 2015, 'Shaun the Sheep' proved to us that sometimes less is more, and provided the world with a wonderful, down-to-earth, feel-good movie for the whole family. There's nothing that especially stands out about this title, but that's sort of what's so good about it. This is one of those "comfort food" movies you might watch if you're stuck at home, bored, and really need a pick-me-up. Incidentally, one can find it on Prime for the low, low rental price of a mere 99 cents. The price is most definitely right for what it is! Stemming from the British animated series (also found on Prime), the film's central focus is Shaun (Justin Fletcher); a young sheep who lives alongside his flock at Mossy Bottom Farm. The routine on the farm is very much the same daily grind, and Shaun decides out of boredom that he needs a day off. A plan is made to have the farmer (John Sparkes) sleep through the day, but the flock ends up stashing the farmer in a trailer that rolls into the big city, while the farmer's loyal dog, Bitzer (also John Sparkes), chases after it. The farmer is eventually bonked on his head, causing memory loss, and through a series of events finds himself as a celebrity barber, derived from a vague memory of shearing. Meanwhile, the sheep find life too difficult at the farm without the farmer, so they all put on human disguises and head into town to look for him. Along the way, the flock eventually reunites with Bitzer who wants to find the farmer even more than they do, so he's happy to help despite the fact that he's upset at them for letting things happen. However, they also come across a maniacal animal catcher named A. Trumper (Omid Djalili), who Shaun, Bitzer and the other sheep have to constantly dodge while trying to reunite with the farmer. That's basically the gist of things - it's what I might call a fun Sunday afternoon adventure. I'm only really speaking for myself here, but I'd be hard-pressed not to say "yes" to an Aardman animation title for a simple pick-me-up. One might be more familiar with their 'Wallace and Gromit' titles, or 'Chicken Run', but much of the time their style is unmistakable. Those exaggerated mouths tend to sort of be the trademark of the company. In any case, these guys know how to put a smile on my face with their cheery, family-friendly material that has just a dose or two of adult humor. In one scene here, involving the City Animal Shelter, there's a cat with a cone around its neck doing a Hannibal Lector impression, but it can't possibly be scene as creepy because it's so funny. As far as its Oscar nomination goes, it lost to Pixar's 'Inside-Out', but most people saw what the lineup was and even though I love 'Inside-Out', even I have to admit it was far too obvious that year. Of course, that's not to say any of the other films were bad at all. But consider 'Inside-Out' which everyone and their mother's still know about vs this title, Ghibli's 'When Marnie Was There', 'Anomalisa' and 'Boy and the World'. Does anyone reading this remember any of them, other than perhaps the Ghibli title? Anyway, I daresay this could have been a solid runner-up, but I'm still upset that somehow 'The Peanuts Movie' got diddly-squat that year! But I digress. Whether this received any major awards or not, this is still well-worth the watch, especially if you need some cheering up. It's got an upbeat soundtrack to it, the atmosphere is mainly pretty bright and cheery, it provides quite a few laugh out loud moments, and it amazingly does everything without any speech at all. There are voices, yes, but the communication here is all done with gibberish, grunting and body language. Part of the brilliance of this film is that you understand exactly what's going on at any given time and there's absolutely no dialogue. Once again, it just goes to show that sometimes less is more. I highly recommend this ray of sunshine to provide anyone with light on these dark days. 5/5 While the Oscars are currently scheduled for April, we would normally be in Oscar Month by now. Thus, I wanted to do a "Round 2" of the animated Academy Award nominees from past years that tend to go overlooked. Our first example is a lovely little French film called 'Ernest & Celestine' (which I watched the English dub of). This one lost to 'Frozen' in 2013, and also had to deal with the likes of 'Despicable Me 2', 'The Croods' and Ghibli's 'The Wind Rises'. In other words, it didn't really stand a chance. But with that said, I can easily still recommend it for the right audience. As the film opens, we are introduced to a young mouse named Celestine (Pauline Brunner/Mackenzie Foy) who lives in an underground world at an orphanage. Their caretaker; "The Gray One" (Anne-Marie Loop/Lauren Bacall) tells the orphan children foreboding stories at night about the bears who live above them. Celestine has her doubts about the "must-eat" nature of these bears, but the stories are nevertheless effectively creepy. In this rodent world, all rodents study dentistry, as good teeth used for building and burrowing are key to their lifestyle. The children are to go up to the surface and act as "mouse tooth fairies", collecting bear cub teeth which these mouse dentists use as replacement rodent incisors. Celestine isn't altogether interested, however, and would rather do something artistic. When she is told by the Head Dentist (Dominique Collignon/William H. Macy) that she's severely behind on her tooth quota, Celestine heads to the surface and is chased into a trash can by a family of bears, where she is found by a destitute and reclusive bear named Ernest (Lambert Wilson/Forest Whitaker). Celestine eventually convinces him to help her out by robbing a dental office of its extracted teeth. At first, things go swimmingly. Celestine is praised for her tooth-collecting, and there's cause for celebration, until the rodents find Ernest in their midst and blame Celestine for bringing him. The pair are chased out, and soon find themselves on the run - Celestine for bringing Ernest down into their world, and Ernest for his thievery. As one can probably tell out of context, this is very much a movie that portrays different societal understandings of different cultures. This is a world where a city of bears and an underground community of rodents pretty much hate each other, yet the rodents rely on the bears to provide them with teeth, and the bears simply see the rodents in the same way many humans see them as vermin. As sad as it is to say, we can make that symbolic towards some people when it comes to race, culture, creed, lifestyle, gender, the list goes on. It may not be a new and different thing to watch with the way things are today, as many movies are providing many messages in recent years (and the fight still goes on). But this was 2012, and though I'm not 100% on it, I don't think the message it conveys was as out there as it is now. All in all, I enjoyed this one. It provides a pretty interesting atmosphere in that it seems to flip-flop things. The underground rodent world is so dark and creepy, but they are the ones who fear the above-ground world which is essentially just bears doing regular human stuff. I further appreciate the simplistic 2-D animation, proving once again that sometimes less is more. Some of the decisions made in the animators' artistry are genuinely beautiful, and really stand out. I particularly enjoy one final shot of the film that's incredibly minimalist, but provides an image that sort of says it all. I can recommend this largely for a younger audience, but I'd be hard-pressed to say adults wouldn't get anything out of it just as well. I'm still not entirely sure I'd say it's even that Oscar-worthy, but its a positive film worth checking out in one's spare time, nonetheless. 3/5 I haven't actually watched this one since it was in theaters back in 2005. At the time, I remember having a lot of fun with it, laughing at Ryan Reynolds' actions the same way we laugh at him in the 'Deadpool' movies now. This viewing was one I still had fun with, but it's not quite what I remembered. I had this listed as "Under the Radar" because I feel like no one talks about it anymore, and it falls under the "forgotten" category. Although I feel like one can still enjoy this, given its subject matter, it's a bit dated with some of its terminology. More on that later. The film opens in 1995, where an overweight high school senior named Chris Brander (Ryan Reynolds) is crushing hard on his best friend, Jamie Palamino (Amy Smart). He confesses his feelings to her in her yearbook, which gets read aloud by her ex boyfriend, Tim (Ty Olsson). Despite Jamie thinking it was incredibly sweet, Chris is ruthlessly made fun of for it. To rub salt in his wound, Jamie also mentions how good of a "friend" he is, hence the film's title. Chris storms off and leaves town, claiming he'd make something of himself. Sure enough, fast-forward ten years, and he has lost weight, and become a successful record producer and womanizer - just about the opposite of what he was ten years prior. Chris is asked by his CEO, KC (Stephen Root) to accompany a pop singer he once dated, Samantha James (Anna Faris) to Paris. The idea is to butter her up, so she'll sign with the company's label. Chris reluctantly agrees, knowing what he's getting into, having their relationship end with him in the hospital. Thing go awry almost immediately when Samantha sets fire to her private jet by putting tinfoil in its microwave. This causes them to make an emergency landing in New Jersey, close to Chris' hometown. This allows Chris to bring Samantha to his mother's house to spend the night, or however long they need. Chris and Samantha hit up the town that night, where Chris runs into more of his past, including friends Clark (Fred Ewanuick), Darla (Amy Matysio) and of course, Jamie, who Chris realizes he has some mixed emotions for. He figures that now that he's made something of himself, he can simply seduce her and basically be shallow about things in a bit of a revenge plot. But somewhere deep down, is still the sweet, chubby man child he once was, and little by little he realizes his feelings are more genuine than his plans. This is especially true when he gets some competition in the form of Dusty Dinkleman (Chris Klein); someone even lower on the high school totem pole than he was, who has also seemingly made something of himself. As mentioned earlier, I personally find myself still enjoying this movie despite a few dated aspects about it. The key to it is the whole "just friends" theme it plays; a zone I know all too well. I suppose to keep it short, this is a movie that suggests that the whole "friend zone" thing doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing, AND that if you play your cards right as the friend, it COULD (no promises, whatsoever) lead to something deeper eventually down the line. It's a movie that suggests we need to just be ourselves if we want results, and not try so hard to impress. It's kind of an old and cliche message, I suppose, but it's also one that speaks to me on a personal level. I mean, why would you want to be with someone who doesn't like and appreciate you for you? For my money, the film's funny aspects generally come a lot from the side characters. Chris' mother (Julie Hagerty) was a good laugh, being a touch senile, but ever so sweet. She's a bit of a reflection of Aunt Bethany from 'Christmas Vacation'. A lot of the loose throwing around of "gay is bad" comes from Chris' brother, Mike (Christopher Marquette) and it's something I can't quite wrap my head around. The kid is an 18-year-old dummy type in 2005, so I feel like one could see it as satire just as easily as one could find it offensive. A lot of his humor comes from the sibling rivalry he has with Chris, along with his obsession with Samantha. Whether or not this is your cup of tea, it's a movie I still enjoy for myself. There's a lot of good laughs here, and by the end, an interesting message for those perpetually caught in that friend zone. To me, the film basically tells us how much of a pain in the ass the friend zone is, but with the right amount of patience, it can possibly lead to something great. The funny thing is, the whole movie ends on a gag that suggests this is something that's bound to happen to just about anyone, and it happens so quick, you hardly even realize it. It's not an annual watch for me, and honestly, Christmas is only really a backdrop for it. But there's a bitter yet humorous reality to it I can't help but appreciate, and I still get plenty of laughs through it. 3/5 Here's a title several people probably remember from when the 21st century introduced itself. In the past twenty years, it has seemingly gone unnoticed and/or tossed aside. Most people I talk to either haven't heard of it, or think I'm referring to the fairly fresh 2019 drama series of the same name. This all frankly sometimes surprises me, considering it's a movie that features Nicolas Cage in the lead role. But perhaps it's just that he's not quite "Nick Cage" enough for viewers here. Indeed, it's one of those times he plays it more serious, so if you wanna see whacked out crazy Cage, you're out of luck. Cage plays the role of a Wall Street Executive named Jack. He, and his long-time partner, Kate (Téa Leoni) are parting ways at JFK Airport, as Jack is headed to London to take up a twelve-month internship. The fear of his leaving hurting their long-term relationship, however, gets to her. Then, as though it's already the end of any typical romance movie, Kate asks him not to go. She gives a short but pretty convincing speech about staying with her to start a nice, peaceful family life. He reassures her that their love will last through the worst, and takes off anyway, leaving her heart-broken at the terminal. So, right off the bat, we see who these people are - their introductions are quite solid for being so quick. Thirteen years pass, and Jack finds himself living a carefree bachelor lifestyle. Things are going quite well for him; he's a successful go-getter on Wall Street, and loves what he does, making him the cocky type who cares a little more about his lifestyle than other people. This comes right down to Kate who evidently tries calling him, but despite the fact that he remembers her, he doesn't answer the phone. He leaves work one night, and heads into a convenience store where an average young New Yorker named Cash (Don Cheadle) tries to claim a lottery ticket that the clerk refuses, accusing him of cheating with it. This leads to an interaction of Jack attempting to find Cash some help, but little does Jack know what's about to happen. When Cash asks Jack if anything is missing from his life, and he responds by stating he has everything he needs, the magic begins with the offer of a "glimpse". Jack awakens the next morning next to Kate, in a lovely house with two happy children. For the first while, as anyone probably would he goes around town freaking out just a little bit at the fact that people aren't recognizing him, or at least not recognizing him correctly. He's suddenly married with children and working as a car tire salesman, with people being a bit more friendly than usual towards him. He soon comes to realize this "glimpse" is what he could have had if he stayed behind from his opportunity in London, thirteen years ago. The big question is, which lifestyle does he want more?; the swinging lifestyle of a bachelor Wall Street executive, or the simple life of a "family man" where love and good memories is all one needs to be happy? Just to get it out of the way, I found myself enjoying this quite a bit. It takes some of the best aspects of 'It's a Wonderful Life', sort of flipping it, and I'd even go so far as to say there's a bit of 'Christmas Carol' here just as well. It's a neat take on the idea, and the point that money can't buy you happiness is abundantly clear by the end. All in all, it's a film that goes from very cold to very warm, and things flow pretty well. It may not be entirely original, but it's sweet. It's a good film to make one appreciate what they have in the way of love and affection. It also puts the idea forth that being rich and successful are all well and good, but what if it makes you miss out on the love of your life? It's a good way to analyze the different paths we choose in life. The film isn't without a couple of nitpicky flaws, but at the end of the day, that's exactly what they are - personal nitpicks. I think the prime example for myself is that the daughter (Makenzie Vega) was made a little too cute - almost as though she was a cartoon character. So there are certainly those aspects thrown in there just to make things sappy. But with that said, I was impressed at how much Cage was able to bring himself down, and how much Leoni was able to bring herself up. I tend to like Cage at his "Cagiest", but this was a role that proves he can settle his ass down for a couple of hours if need be. Leoni was someone I was never a big fan of, mostly because I find her to be very one-note and bland with almost no character in almost anything. But here, she shows some of her range, and I admit I was impressed. The real takeaway here though, is the story. Once again, it's not entirely original, but it is some of the best aspects of some of those Christmas classics we all know and love. Regardless of anything, it's a movie that teaches the right lessons, it's warm, it's sweet, and it's something one could easily cuddle up with their partner to watch by a cozy fireplace in these cold December days leading up to Christmas. I wouldn't place it at the top of my list of Christmas recommendations, but it's certainly not something I'd try to steer people away from as a waste of time. It's quite good for what it is, and I enjoyed how sweet it was, so for many, it could be worth the watch. 3/5 For the month of December, of course my focus is gonna be on films that float under the radar around Christmastime. We kick things off with 2005's 'The Ice Harvest', directed by Harold Ramis, and its probably one of his darker movies; although it maintains a sense of humor. Indeed, this is one of those movies where a lot of the humor lies in the darker aspects of it, like working for the mob and all that entails. As the film opens, we're introduced to a couple of criminals; mob lawyer Charlie Arglist (John Cusack) and a pornographer businessman named Vic Cavanaugh (Billy Bob Thornton). They have stolen about $2 million from mobster Bill Guerrard (Randy Quaid), who also happens to be their boss, and are amped for an easy getaway. However, an icy rain comes along making the roads far too dangerous for driving. Vic takes the money for safekeeping, and they both try to evade capture and potential torture from Roy Gelles (Mike Starr), one of Guerrard's thugs, through this bitter Christmas Eve night. With Guerrard finding out their scheme, it seems to be only a matter of time. The main backdrop of the movie is the Sweet Cage strip club, which Vic owns, run by Renata Crest (Connie Nielsen), the object of Charlie's affection. There's a whole "take the money and run" subplot going on with them, as she finds out about the money and essentially wants to get away from the lifestyle she's living. There's another subplot involving Charlie's friend, Pete (Oliver Platt), who happens to be married to Charlie's ex. Honestly though, it's hardly worth mentioning, as it's kind of crowbarred into the film. There is a reason for it, but by the end of it all it seems almost unnecessary. There's not a lot of charm to the Platt stuff, not so much because of Platt, but because his character is just perpetually drunk for laughs; he's the guy who doesn't know when to stop. A lot of the stuff involving Charlie and whatever it is he wants to do with the money, is pretty good stuff though. There's not a whole lot of laugh out loud moments here, but it certainly got a few giggles. I generally really enjoy a good dark comedy, but this is one of those movies you have to be in the right mood for. A lot of it feels more serious than it probably should, and as a movie with a Christmas backdrop, it doesn't really use it a lot other than people humming Christmas carols the odd time. Not that a movie like this should feel "Christmassy", but it doesn't use enough elements from the holiday to consider it any sort of Christmas movie. I refer readers to 'Die Hard' which uses Christmas all throughout its action as a prime example of how to do it right. The film is not, however, without a certain charm to it. It was interesting seeing Ramis take a darker look at things, and the weather sets the mood for the film almost perfectly. For those of us familiar with the idea, a winter rain is just awful. It's cold, wet, grey, slushy, slippery, and even dangerous under certain circumstances (like driving). It's the type of weather that has snow-haters saying "I wish this was snow". To be honest, I can't think of a lot of movies that use this type of weather for atmosphere, so points for originality. It's a good way to trap everyone in the same town and have to wait things out. The performances here are pretty 50/50. I wasn't a fan of Platt's drunken schmoe character, and I didn't think there was a whole lot of personality to Renata other than being that "tease" type towards Charlie (in more ways than one). But I did enjoy Charlie, as this sort of awkward character who didn't fully know what he was doing, and Vic was just about as Billy Bob as Billy Bob can get, which is always great - imagine 'Bad Santa', just without all the alcohol. So, while the main cast and overall setting is enough to keep things entertaining, it's not entirely a must-see either. Not much sticks out, it's a touch forgettable, and I kind of get why it's a film located "under Santa's radar". Give it a shot if you have an hour and a half to kill, and your curiosity gets the better of you - just remember that it doesn't necessarily have to be seen around Christmastime either. 3/5 A few years before Elsa was telling us all to "Let it Go", this was the film people would refer to if they ever asked you if you've seen 'Frozen'. Nowadays, this had been swept under the rug almost completely, because let's face it; "Have you ever seen 'Frozen'?" only ever seems to point to Disney's modern classic. This version is a harrowing survivor story involving three young adults stuck on a ski lift, up against some of the harshest conditions nature can throw at them. The aforementioned trio consists of Dan Walker (Kevin Zegers), his girlfriend, Parker O'Neil (Emma Bell) and the totally ironic third wheel, Joe Lynch (Shawn Ashmore, who once played Ice Man in the 'X-Men' films). They head to the hills to do some skiing and snowboarding, but are jerks about the mountain having to close early for the week. They convince the ski lift operator to allow them one last run, but due to some confusion down below, the ski lift stops and the resort closes, leaving all three of them stranded up high in a ski chair. Together, they struggle to survive sitting in one suspended spot knowing that the resort doesn't open back up again for another week. Speaking for myself, this movie gave me the same kinds of feelings I got with 'The Edge' the first time I saw it. It really portrays nature working against these people, with cold, bitter winds that whip icy snow at their faces and a pack of wolves down below waiting for an easy meal. I won't spoil too much, but things get pretty brutal. I can say with all honesty that if you're someone who can't stand things like broken bones, skin peeling off, or even the picking of small blemishes (in this case, frostbite), you might very well decide to skip this one. I was cringing a LOT during this, but in all the right ways, considering what the film was trying to do. One thing some people know about me when it comes to movies is that I'm not the biggest fan of the vilification of wolves. Wolves are my favorite animal; so much so that I have one tattooed on my right arm. There are plenty of documentaries out there that show just how interesting they are as a species, and ALL of our favorite dogs have descended from them. Perhaps that's why they are used so often - it's the idea of "man's best friend" turning on you. There was something about this time around though - I found them convincing. They don't just show up to attack, they show up because something happens to lure them in. It is scary stuff, but to me, this felt like a justifiably dark take on wolves. It's almost like the movie scares you into respecting them, and it feels like one of the more realistically dark takes on wolves I've seen. Putting the wolf pack aside, though, it's also just an interesting take on character development. While suspended up there, they get to talking and bringing up some stuff that really pulls at your heartstrings. Admittedly, sometimes that heartstring pulling is pretty forced, but some of it adds character to some of these... characters. The mood is set immediately when they start talking about the worst way to die, which actually has a pretty funny punchline, but it's definitely some heavy foreshadowing. As soon as the lights shut off on the slope, you get this sense of foreboding, and it doesn't help that they start freaking out a little about it. I have to admit that this was a movie that was effectively scary to me. Things get very cleithrophobic (the fear of being stuck, often confused with claustrophobia; the fear of being closed in small spaces), and having my personal crippling fear of heights, it just worked. I was at the edge of my seat, cringing, wincing, even routing for them a little bit. It's movies like this that make me glad I never took up skiing or snowboarding, because I would NOT do well on a ski lift on the best of days, let alone getting stuck up there, even for an instant. I think if you don't mind some of the more gruesome stuff, and you're on the lookout for a harrowing suspense thriller, it's definitely worth checking out. 4/5 When it comes down to Man vs Nature films, there are only a few I may find more thrilling than 'The Edge'. I saw this one in theaters back when it was released in '97, and it has held a special place in my heart since. Believe it or not, this is also the film that made me appreciate Anthony Hopkins as an amazing actor. This was before I finally saw 'Silence of the Lambs', which everyone else loves him for, which is kind of funny, as he plays a hero of sorts here. The film starts out innocently enough with a billionaire named Charles Morse (Hopkins), happily married to model, Mickey (Elle Macpherson). Along with photographer, Bob Green (Alec Baldwin) and his assistant, Stephen (Harold Perrineau), the group take a trip to a remote cabin in an Alaskan village, and are hosted by knowledgeable woodsman, Styles (L.Q. Jones). He's here to be a bit of a harbinger, as he foreshadow the horrors of a bear attack, which would soon become relevant. The reason for the trip seems to be for a photoshoot, which includes Bob photographing Mickey, all the while seemingly flirting with her. However, Charles keeps his cool, engrossed in a book about survival. Eventually, Bob, Stephen and a reluctant Charles go on a flight in search of an Alaskan man, Jack Hawk (Gordon Tootoosis), who has a connection to Bob and his photography. Their plane crash lands in the middle of nowhere, and th trio soon find themselves engrossing in the Alaskan wilderness, having to hike their way back. All the while, a gigantic grizzly bear tracks and hunts them, and the concept of survival gets cranked to eleven. In the meantime, an unspoken thing between Charles and Bob, involving Charles' wife, adds to the intensity of the situation. We know this is a man vs nature survival film, but we further get that it's gonna be man vs man in a matter of time. The cool thing about it is, right up until the end, the film studies human nature more than just making them "bad guy and good guy". Speaking of "bad guy", the main antagonist of this movie is the grizzly bear. Little known fact about this guy, he's actually a pretty famous actor, and is thanked at the end of the film as the credits begin to roll. Played by "Bart the Bear", he has appeared in numerous other titles including 'The Great Outdoors' (as the bald-headed bear), 'White Fang', and 'Homeward Bound' (1 and 2) just to name a few. Sadly, he passed at the age of 23 back in 2000, but he certainly left behind an impression. Cards on the table, even though this isn't considered a horror movie of any sort, this bear kind of traumatized me during one particular scene, and it seem that this scene is still pretty bothersome to me. So kudos to Bart the Bear for being one of the most intimidating on-screen presences through my history of movie-watching. Some of you may be reading this wondering why I have it "Under the Radar". After all, it was a wide release at the time, stars an A-lister duo, and it's just a well-told story. The fact is, however, most people I ask about whether they've seen this movie simply haven't heard of it, or have, but don't remember it at all. Although I will grant that some of the survival techniques in this could be a bit off, including what they let them get away with. But when it comes down to the story, characters, and all around suspense, I think it does a really good job. As long as you can stomach some of the brutality from the bear, this is a solid, intense watch, and I recommend checking it out if you're looking for something dark, but still solidly dramatic. 4/5 Today, we take a look at a biopic that depicts woman vs. nature. This film focuses on American writer Cheryl Strayed, and her memoir 'Wild: From Lost to Found on the Pacific Crest Trail.' For myself, this was essentially like checking out 'Into the Wild', but with a female lead. That said, I must admit that I didn't quite get as much out of this one for subtle, perhaps even nitpicky reasons. But it's nevertheless a pretty inspiring story about a woman overcoming the odds - especially when it comes to things like meeting strangers along the way. Even though lacking in experience, Strayed (Reese Witherspoon) decides to leave Minneapolis to undertake a 1,100 mile hike on a big chunk of the Pacific Crest Trail. Being that it follows a divorce from her husband, Paul (Thomas Sadoski), as well as the tragic passing of her mother (Laura Dern), this is a therapeutic journey. The hike will offer her the chance to not only heal from her recent wounds, but find herself as well. These events also follow the more destructive path she initially took, involving a lot of anonymous sex and heroin. Some of this anonymous sex even lead to an abortion, which seems to have been her real deciding factor as an opportunity at redemption. So yeah, there's quite a lot going on under the surface for our lead character. They do a pretty good job here at making sure that they don't overdo it, but throw danger in her path every now and then. There are moments like one where she has to face off against a rattlesnake that don't really lead to anything. But there are others, especially with the people she meets, that are enough to make you fear for her safety. She often makes decisions one might consider pretty dumb, but having said that, she does seem to learn as she goes. The whole thing about this is that she's inexperienced, and perhaps some of these decisions are simply made because they might lead to food and/or water, maybe even tips on how to better her hike. So it's kind of this weird "who can you trust" thing, and though the threats are always potentially there, not a whole hell of a lot happens. In fact, throughout the film, the worst enemy she has is essentially herself. There's a moment or two of doubt about people, but there's not much to fear here if you don't wanna catch some creepy 'Last House on the Left' vibe (thank God). Interestingly enough, I don't remember this movie ever being a thing. It was likely that I wasn't interested and therefore didn't bother and forgot. However, to its credit, this has done fairly well for itself. It was nominated for two Academy Awards for both Reese Witherspoon and Laura Dern for their acting skills (losing to Julianne Moore for 'Still Alice' and Patricia Arquette for 'Boyhood', respectively). There was a Golden Globe nomination for Witherspoon on top of that as well. It seems to have sort of dropped under the radar since then, as I hear no one talking about it, ever. Having said that, however, I think it might be worth a look if you can appreciate things like nature and poetry and the artsy side of filmmaking. Personally speaking, I probably wouldn't include this one in my favorites as far as... let's say "Person vs Nature" films go. There's nothing I'd say is particularly bad about it (although, again, a lot of her decision making is questionable) and most of what I could say against it would be a nitpicky criticism. If you're willing to get a little bit deep with a film, it's a pretty inspiring story about a woman overcoming quite a lot. It does feel a bit heavy-handed at times, but that's probably also the point. The film goes through her struggles up until the end, which I won't spoil, but it's a happier ending than 'Into the Wild' that kind of makes you think. I liked it, and I'd probably watch it again to see if it ends up growing on me. But for now, it's just an interesting story about someone I never knew existed. Now that I do, I'd be curious to read some of what Cheryl Strayed has actually written. All in all, she's an inspiring person. 3/5 Those who know me well know that my favorite animal on this planet is the wolf. I find them hauntingly fascinating, seemingly very neutral creatures. Hell, I've even got one inked on my right arm. So naturally, when I came across this title, it wasn't hard to add to the list. I wanted to do something involving wolves that didn't vilify them in any way, and lo and behold, I came across this apparent Disney classic that I had no idea existed. This one is an adaptation of researcher Farley Mowat's autobiography of the same name. The book has been credited for dramatically shifting the worldview of wolves from a vicious and almost monstrous one to a much more positive one. This is a book I just learned about, and I am totally intrigued to see how well this matches up. The film does the same thing, and does so in a way where it doesn't exactly sugarcoat them either. Wolves are animals living the circle of life just like everything else, and certainly do not have a profile that could be matched with that of a murder hornet. The film opens with an effort to find out why the caribou population is dying off in the Canadian Arctic. A young biologist named Tyler (Charles Martin Smith) is sent to study the area, as well as the wolves who live nearby. He's brought to the icy climate by way of a trashy bush plane, piloted by "Rosie" Little (Brian Dennehy), and left to his own devices with whatever research gear he was given. He is soon helped by an Inuit man named Ootek (Zachary Ittimangnaq) who helps him with his shelter, but then he disappears, leaving Tyler to face the elements and nature alone. This is where the movie gets pretty fascinating, as Tyler soon encounters two wolves and their cubs. Approaching them little by little, he eventually establishes a relationship and names the two George and Angeline. The bond itself isn't quite as fascinating as how it develops though. We see Tyler adapting to the wild in such a way that his social exchanges with the wolves involve "marking their territories", creating trust and respect. As Tyler continues his research, and develops his relationship with these animals, he soon uncovers the truth behind the loss of caribou. And although one may sit, reading this saying they know the big reveal due to its obviousness, I've gotta say it's still a great movie. Perhaps I am a bit bias due to my love for wolves, but I enjoy that this is a movie that doesn't paint wolves in an evil light. I've always kind of felt that wolves get a bad rap in storytelling for the most part - especially if your story involves a dog. What I like about this is that it starts out claiming things like fear and mystery behind these animals, but soon the veil is pushed aside and we are able to see wolves here in a positive light that isn't really force-fed to us. We just see nature happening here, and a lot of it is quite beautiful. But I will say, a lot of it can get kind of gross too - although this is Disney, 1983, so it's certainly not nightmare fuel. I'll be honest, I hadn't heard of this title until I started looking for "Man vs Nature" films for this list. That's sort of surprising to me at this point considering it's highly regarded among critics, has cast members I recognize, involves wolves, and even got nominated for an Oscar - it was for Best Sound, but still. It comes from Carroll Ballard; director of 'Fly Away Home' and 'The Black Stallion'. Between those two titles alone, you know this is a man who can capture nature in a very captivating way. This film is no exception to that. The camerawork and imagery can be pretty breathtaking a lot of the time, and he does a good job at making you feel like a part of things. It's not without a few bumps, but for me they would be minor nitpicks. There's a bit of gross out stuff one can let slide, as it does add to the story, and I think my biggest complaint is how predictable it is. But this was also 1983, and I don't know if a lot of this kind of thing was really covered by then. Regardless of any of that, there's a certain comfortable Canadian beauty this movie carries with it, and there's oddly something about it that feels a bit like home. It's the kind of thing to cozy up to a nice warm fire to with a cup of hot chocolate and just relax and enjoy. 4/5 We start this month's theme of Man vs. Nature with an incredible but tragic true story that paints the majestic Mount Everest in a horrifying light. I will also take the time to recommend the documentary of the events to inspire this film; 'Into Thin Air: Death on Everest' (if you can find it). In either case, each film gives a pretty traumatic look at the seemingly common bucket list goal of climbing Mt. Everest. For yours truly, it's more than enough to say "not in a million years". Taking place in 1996, a man named Rob Hall (Jason Clarke) has popularized commercial Everest missions. On this fateful mission, Rob is leading a team consisting of a variety of characters; an experienced climber named Beck Weathers (Josh Brolin); a mailman pursuing a goal named Doug Hansen (John Hawkes); a climbing veteran named Yasuko Namba (Naoko Mori), making this the last of the Seven Summits for her to climb; and a journalist for "Outside" magazine named Jon Krakauer (Michael Kelly). Meanwhile, Rob's company 'Adventure Consultants' has friendly competition with 'Mountain Madness', lead by Scott Fischer (Jake Gyllenhaal). However with potential climber overcrowding, the two groups have to try to agree on thing like reducing delays, and keeping an eye on the elements that involve extreme cold, pitfalls, lack of oxygen, and worst of all, a terrible incoming winter storm. As the groups try to cooperate with their back and forth, as well as the stubbornness of some of the climbers, before anyone knows it, everyone is in for a disaster of epic proportions that make the craziest disaster movies look like a picnic - especially when you know all of this stuff actually happened. This one came out five years ago, and did manage to hit it pretty big for the time. It was a September release, so it didn't quite fit the summer blockbuster caliber of things, but a lot of the names were a big draw, along with the true story aspect. However, it seemed to get the treatment of either being completely overlooked, or viewed once and let alone to be forgotten about. It's funny, but if I bring this up nowadays, it seems there's a select few who have even heard of it - even with all of the names attached. I haven't even mentioned Keira Knightly, or Robin Wright (who play Ben and Beck's respective at-home wives), but things are decently star-studded here. The real draw of the film, however, has everything to do with its overall intensity. I saw this one on the big screen with post-conversion 3D, and it actually turned out really good. For a lot of the time, you feel like you're right there with the group, caught up in all the terrifying elements nature can throw at you. I still remember actually keeping my jacket on for the movie because something about it just felt cold. On the small screen, the effect isn't quite as strong, but that doesn't matter, because there's still a great but harrowing story here that deserves to be seen. I feel like this was a title that kind of got swept under the rug after a little while, but it's a great cautionary tale for aspiring mountaineers. I feel obligated, however, to inform everyone that this is not what one would call a "feel-good" movie of any kind. It has some funny moments of comradery, but nothing about it is a comedy. It's intense for a lot of it, and nearing the end, your heart is just about bound to break. But once again, if you think a Hollywood movie on these events is gonna be too much for you, I stil highly recommend the documentary, 'Into Thin Air: Death on Everest'. It's honestly just as intense, and you'll get more accounts from some of the real people involved. As for this, it's one of very few movies where, when I left the theater, everyone was just quiet, and for me, that only means it makes one think. It's a very good movie, and I still highly recommend it - but have something cheerful on standby for after it's over. 4/5 I figured I'd conclude Vicious Vampire Month with, not only a title I've never seen before, but one of the most famous vampire titles out there. This marks twice this month I've brought up a 3-hour long Stephen King miniseries for review (the other being 'It'), and I could recommend some others for a dose of cheesy, classic Halloween fun. 1979's 'Salem's Lot' has gone down throughout vampiric horror history as one of the quintessential vampire "movies" out there, and one of the best Stephen King adaptations. The film opens in a church somewhere in Guatemala, where Ben Mears (David Soul) and young Mark Petrie (Lance Kerwin) are filling small bottles with holy water. When one of the bottles starts to glow, Ben says "they've found us again", the music chimes in, and things then focus on a creepy looking house as the credits start rolling. It's certainly enough to get one interested, and I have to say that I dig composer Harry Sukman's score. It's pretty basic sounding, but along with the focus on that house, it gets one curious about what they are about to see, leading up to however these two got to where they were in the beginning. Rewind two years earlier when Mears returns to the small town of Salem's Lot after a long time away. He is now an established author, and becomes intent on writing about the allegedly haunted house we see in the opening credits; the Marsden House (which plays as much a character in this as 1428 Elm Street does in the 'Nightmare on Elm Street' series). In an attempt to rent it, he finds that is has been claimed by a Richard Straker (Lance Kerwin); another new guy in town who opens his own antique shop, along with his partner, Kurt Barlow (Reggie Nalder), who we never really get to see for a while. Mears finds a boarding house to stay in instead, and there develops a liking for the lovely Susan Norton (Bonnie Bedelia). Things are looking up for him, but there's a darkness about the Marsten house's history that Mears hasn't forgotten from his childhood in which he apparently saw the ghost of its previous owner, Hubie Marsten, who committed suicide after some heinous crimes against children. Little does he know that a mysterious crate arrives to the Marsten house one day, carrying more to add to the household than that of an angry ghost. Slowly but surely, people start to go missing and death starts occurring, and it may be up to Mears to save his hometown from certain evil. This one actually ended up reminding me of a lot of other vampire source material that plays similarly; namely 'Fright Night' as far as the vampire next door goes. I also picked up on certain things like a scene where a certain vampire taps on someone's window and calls to him, which 'The Simpsons' reflected in 'Treehouse of Horror IV'. So there was a good amount of Halloweenish fun to be had with this one, and at three hours, it's somewhat surprising how much it doesn't really seem to drag. There are some drawn out moments, but the atmosphere and design of the vampires, themselves, keeps you going. Remember, this is 1979 and made for TV, so for that, kudos to them for the makeup effects! I have to admit, for something made for TV in the late 70s, I found this totally held up. It may even hold up better than 'It', which I swear, even someone afraid of clowns could probably look at now and admit to its cheese factor (although I could be wrong). This one is just a bit creepier, a bit more mysterious, and the monster isn't a famous actor, hamming it up for the camera. I still love 'It', and it fits the fun factor for Halloween very well. 'Salem's Lot', however, fits the creep factor for Halloween, having its monster be a full-on vicious vampire, thus making this review a nice cherry to add on top of this month's sundae of reviews. This is an easy enough to find title, and all you really need for it is three hours to kill, and the desire to get into a horror product from the 70s - which, by the way, was a legendary decade for horror. Some of it is bound to look dated, but that's honestly something that only added to the fun of it all. It's not something I'd necessarily call scary, but it certainly carries a creepiness with it, and even ends on a pretty deep and heartbreaking note. I won't spoil it, but this is a good example of how a true horror movie ought to end. It doesn't involve a villain springing back to life, or a last-minute surprise kill, just a note of doom - almost a cliffhanger. Anyway, your imagination will have to fill in some blanks, but for me, that's generally a good thing. 4/5 For those of you looking for a decent horror comedy you may not have heard of, I might point you in the direction of 'Bloodsucking Bastards'. Think of the film as combining 'Office Space' with 'Buffy' with 'Workaholics' - except the only element from 'Buffy' is the rather similar, though perhaps more made up portrayal of vampires (at least I see it). Meanwhile, the comedy hangs out more on the comedy stylings of 'Workaholics', and 'Office Space', where it just teeters on that low-brow tier, but manages to be clever enough to be kind of awesome. We open the movie with two opposing personalities; Acting Sales Manager, Evan Sanders (Fran Kranz), who is striving to become Sales Manager full time, and Tim, one of several office slackers. Evan's potition may lay in the balance of Tim (Joey Kern) getting an upcoming presentation done for "Phallucite" (an obvious-sounding male enhancement drug). But Tim keeps slacking off, playing video games at the office with his coworkers and friends, Andrew (Justin Ware) and Mike (Neil Garguilo). To make matters worse, Evan has to deal with the head of HR, Amanda (Emma Fitzpatrick), whom he was once romantically entangled until he screwed something up. I won't say what because it's pretty funny stuff, and it involves no cheating. When Branch President, Ted Plunkett (Joel Murray) arranges an office meeting to discuss something, Even thinks it may be his ticket up the ladder to his permanent position as Sales Manager. Realizing he was only half right about what the meeting entailed, however, Ted gives the position to Evan's arch nemesis, Max Phillips (Pedro Pascal - who we all know now as The Madalorian), who once slept with Evan's girlfriend. Just to add to things, Max starts hitting on Amanda right away. It isn't long after that Evan starts finding evidence (sometimes graphic evidence) that something horrifying is going on under everyone's noses, and he may have a better reason to hate Max than just being the guy who stole his girlfriend one time in the past. I have to say that this was pretty well up my alley as far as the type of film goes. I don't know if I'd say any of it is knee-slapping-hilarious, but it is funny, and the way the comedy unfolds is often pretty clever. There's a running gag, for instance, that involves the idea of everyone else, not just the main character, knowing what's going on. You also get a kick out of the slacker characters, namely Tim, who plays the guy who knows everything's happening, he just doesn't seem to care and is carrying on with life - much like an Ed from 'Shaun of the Dead', but at least Ed clues in at the end. This guy takes the role all the way through as if to say people like this aren't about to change. To top it all off, the office security guard, Frank (Marshall Givens) is one of the best parts - a security guard who's practically robotic and takes his job way too seriously. This brand of comedy may not be for everyone, but I tend to love when a good comedy can be blended with not just a horror, but a gore-fest of a horror. It's not so much guts as blood though. Just think - every time a vampire gets staked here, it just explodes into a pool of blood-splash, and without spoiling much, there's a fair share of this. I will say sometimes the comedy tries a bit too hard with thinks like obnoxious screaming reactions, and some of the humor is just plain low-brow. But it's often enough that they get a clever joke in there that I can hold on, not just relying on the horror aspect of things. It's a solid blend, an I recommend it to fans of things like 'Zombieland'; a parodic comedy with big balls of steel. 4/5 Based on a comic book miniseries, this one comes to us from director David Slade, who would later go from vicious to sparkling when he would direct 'Twilight: Eclipse' in 2010. Although there's nothing about that series that particularly interests me, it is interesting to know that this movie comes from a seemingly flexible director. The vampires in this movie are not at all romanticized, and are vicious, blood-thirsty creatures of the night - just the way I like 'em! Taking place in the town of Barrow, Alaska (restored to its original Iñupiat name, Utqiaġvik, in 2016, thus somewhat dating the film), the townsfolk are setting up for their annual "30 Days of Night", when there is a month-long polar night. While this is going on, a random stranger (Ben Foster) comes to shore and takes out the town's communication and transport services, somewhat trapping them all. Meanwhile, the town's sheriff, Eben Oleson (Josh Hartnett) is facing the consequences of his estranged wife, Stella (Melissa George) missing her flight, and having to stay the 30 days. A group of vampires, led by someone named Marlow (Danny Huston) is connected to the mysterious stranger, and when he sabotages everything, they launch a vicious attack on the town. Soon, Eben, Stella, Eben's brother, Jake (Mark Rendall) and a handful of others find themselves hold up in an attic, hiding from the bloodsuckers. But how long will they have to hide when this group of vampires is basically immune to the cold and don't have to worry about sunrise anytime soon? Considering this whole polar night thing is very real, it sort of surprises me that this concept wasn't thought up sooner. Why wouldn't a hoard of vampires take advantage of a place where the sun won't rise for a month? I've always really liked the whole concept here. The film is very middle-ground according to other critics. At worst it's considered a waste of great talent, at best, it's an original and clever concept. I happily lean towards the latter, and find it to be sincerely underrated as a scary vampire film. For as "horror" as vampires tend to be, it seems to be rather rare for them to be portrayed as true monsters as opposed to something more romantic. But while so many prefer that vampire with class, I personally love the vicious, inescapable, blood-thirsty creatures, and this movie certainly has them. At times, sure, it feels a bit over-the-top, but it's a great gorefest for anyone seeking the more animalistic side of these creatures. While it doesn't entirely escape my criticisms, I can't deny that I have a lot of fun with this one as a horror movie. Certain things I don't like about it, however, include a hell of a lot of ear-piercingly noisy shrieking, and it's one of those movies that's quiet one moment, loud the next. You know, the kind of movie where you crank up the volume just to hear someone speak, but soon that's followed by an action sequence that suddenly makes your house vibrate. It's a big pet peeve of mine, although I do understand that it has to do with mood-establishment. Still though, it's irritating. On the other hand, the film is very dark and cold in its tone and sets the mood for an inescapable town of horrors. The vampire designs are pretty decent and creepy-looking, and it carries with it an atmosphere of dread through its entirety. I also have to give it up for its ending, which I certainly didn't quite see coming. It's actually pretty badass, if you ask me. So while it's nothing that's about to become an annual Halloween tradition, or even something I've gotten into as a series, I do enjoy this one as a horror fan who's more into the animalistic vampires than the more, shall we say, classy ones. I'd recommend it to anyone with similar tastes in the vampiric horror subgenre. 4/5 This was a title that passed me by, back in 2010, when it was initially released. It was very limited, and though I knew about it, it was really just another title I didn't feel like bothering with. Ironically, the main reason i decided not to watch it is actually what makes the movie pretty damn good. Essentially, they took 'Zombieland', replaced zombies with vampires (although they might as well be zombie here), and made it much more dark and serious. At the time, I dubbed it a 'Zombieland' ripoff, and just let it be. In my search for "vicious vampire movies", however, I happened across this title which I had long since forgotten about and thought I'd give it a chance once I saw that it received some generous ratings from various sources. Watching it as a horror fan, I have to say that I enjoyed it. One thing I attribute to good horror nowadays is when the filmmakers make sure we give a damn about the characters, putting them in a bit more peril than they would be if they were Jason fodder. They do a good job of it here, and there's a 'Walking Dead' vibe in which this is so much more about the people than the threat at hand. We meet a young man named Martin (Connor Paolo) whose family is viciously slaughtered by a vampire, and they take it to such an extreme that it made me respect the movie instantly. I won't go into the gory details, but it dares to put something rather graphic on screen to let you know that unlike 'Zombieland', this movie is NOT messing around, and no one is safe from the get-go. Upon discovering his family, Martin is rescued and taken under the wing of a rogue vampire hunter simply known as "Mister" (Nick Damici). Like just about every zombie invasion film that has ever existed (seriously, these vampires are so close to being zombies, it's almost ridiculous), the end goal is a rumored-to-be untouched safe place, here known as "New Eden", somewhere north. Mister takes Martin along for the ride, keeping him safe and training him to be a tough, badass vampire hunter just like him. The general rule is that vampires are vicious, dangerous, horrible creatures who will feast on your flesh at the drop of a hat and the only way to survive is to get used to brutally killing them. However, the film's simplicity wanes when certain characters are introduced along the way. One character, a nun who is only ever referred to as "Sister" (Kelly McGillis), still sees something of a human side to these creatures. Thankfully, she doesn't preach away on the subject as the annoying "holier than thou" character, but we get where she stands, and she's pretty easy to empathize with, all things considered. Another character they pick up on their journey, eventually, is the young and pregnant Belle (Danielle Harris); another soul hoping to make it to New Eden to have her child safely. Of course, none of this would be complete without a primary villain. In this case, we have the leader of a fundamentalist militia known as The Brotherhood, Loven (Michael Cerveris) who considers all of this vampirism they are surrounded with as an act of God. So soon enough our small team of travellers find themselves trying to survive against more horrors than just a horde of zom--- vampires! I keep forgetting. I might say that's my first real complaint about the film.It really and truly does come off as more of a zombie survival film than a movie about a horde of vampires. There's no real intelligence attached to these creatures, they're just bloodthirsty monsters. More criticisms I have on the film aren't many, but one of the fatal flaws, has become a huge pet peeve of mine, and I don't think I stand alone on it - the tone of dialogue. I have come to hate this, not enough to fully ruin a movie for me, but enough to make it lose a point or two. What I mean here is when characters just mumble through their dialogue. They speak in some toned down, dramatic voice, to where it's damn near whispering, and you just miss everything they say. The latest example of something that irked me with it recently was 'Tenet'. I get that it's supposed to add a dramatic and perhaps more realistic tone, but movies have been doing great for decades without the need for that. I wanna understand what I'm hearing. I'm not even kidding, I had to bring it back several times and throw on subtitles. Criticisms aside, I still had a great time with this movie as a solid story. Interestingly enough, there's not a lot of new or different stuff here, but the characters are easy to empathize with, the atmosphere of it all gives you a sense of dread, and the score is so melancholy that it manages to strike this chord of hopelessness, helping you to feel for these characters. There's a good range of these characters as well, and the horror aspect is spot on. Once again, one of the first deaths you see is so brutal that it makes you wanna pay attention - like a car wreck you can't turn away from, even though you know you don't need to see such things. It's horrific, brutal, dramatic, sad, action packed, and it's got one of those great endings where the movie just kinda stops and you, the audience, have to try to fill in the blanks with your imagination. I now people hate that kind of thing, but I eat it up, so good on it... but maybe one day I need to check out 'Stake Land II'. All in all, I had a good time with this, even if it was moderately unoriginal. 3/5 Just a heads up, you're probably about to get into a review that isn't me at my best. The reason being, I don't know how I feel about this movie. It gets such critical praise, but damned if I don't see it as anything particularly special. Which is not to say it's bad, but do I daresay, perhaps a little overrated for what it is? Perhaps it's a timing thing on my part though. Some things are brilliant for their time, and this was a revenge film far before the 'John Wick' series (in my humble opinion, the epitome of revenge films). To be fair, I didn't fully know what I was getting into either. It's classified so often as an action movie that I was expecting something a bit more wild. In actuality, the violence in this tends to lean a little more towards torture porn, but tolerable torture porn. For my money, the most cringe-worthy thing that happens is the ripping out of someone's teeth, so I've seen worse. However, I'll cut this some slack, being that it's a Korean film and my mind is perhaps a little too set on North American thrillers. In other words, maybe I just don't quite get it, and that's on me for perhaps not paying enough attention. The film opens in a grungy city, in the late 80s. A man named Oh Dae-su (Min-sik Choi) is arrested for being drunk in public, and misses his daughter's birthday. He's bailed out by his friend Joo-hwan (Dae-han Ji), but while the two are on the phone with Dae-su's family, Dae-su is kidnapped offscreen, waking in a sealed-shut hotel room. He is fed through a trap door, and has a TV to watch, which sadly delivers the news one day that his wife has been murdered, and he is apparently the prime suspect. He gets revenge on the mind, and spends day after day, year after year for 15 years plotting a revenge, digging an escape tunnel and shadowboxing a lot for exercise. Then just as soon as he's about to escape, the movie gets confusing (at least for me). Skipping through a few odd things, Dae-su finds himself on a mysterious, grassy rooftop, and soon enough his revenge seeking begins. This is not before he runs into a girl named Mi-do (Hye-jeong Kang), who takes him in out of pity. There's a whole sex thing going on there where she wants to succumb to his now animalistic appetite, but after she gets to know him better. For me, this is a little crow-barred in there, but if I give things like this enough though, I can come up with a reason for it being there. Like I say, I don't think it's so much the movie as me. For the most part, I think that the film is trying very hard to put you into Dae-su's shoes. As the film continues to unfold, there's more and more to empathize with him about. Unlike John Wick, he's only really skilled in his 15 years of shadowboxing in his enclosed hotel room. There's something a little more real about this movie, and it's very cool that they make Dae-su perfectly human. He hurts himself when he throws punches, he doesn't always win at what he's doing, he's fallible. If I had to guess why everyone sees this as such a solid film, it likely has something to do with all of that. We're not empathizing with a superhero, we're empathizing with just some guy. It's not for the squeamish. There's quite a bit of closeup, cringe-worthy kinda stuff. Again, I have seen worse, but it doesn't mean it isn't there. I think my final opinion on it is that of a "dirty movie", but not in the sense that it's pornographic. It's that kind of movie you wanna watch once, then take a shower afterwards and maybe not return to it until you're ready for it to be brand new again. I can appreciate fans of this movie, and I wouldn't argue with them for a second that this is bad. I just don't think I can really count myself among them. Plain and simply, it's not really for me, but it has my respect. 3/5 I remember being one of the very few people who caught this in theaters, as it went on to be considered a Box Office bomb. I came out of it thinking the same thing I did this time around; it's a lot of fun, but I'd completely understand anyone's criticisms. I do have a few of my own, but for the most part, I had a good time with it. The concept of a first-person filmed action movie, any way you slice it, is a thrill ride. It's just that some thrill rides are a little less shaky, a little more smooth, and we prefer them. That's not just because the whole thing is filmed in a shaky, first-person way either. The whole unravelling of the movie is shaky, and it's often hard to follow (at least for me). It begins with our first-person hero, Henry (played collectively by cinematographers, Chris W. Johnson, Pasha Kapinos, Vsevolod Kaptur, Fedor Lyass, and cameraman, Robin Roles), waking up inside a lab, where a scientist named Estelle (Haley Bennett) who claims to be his wife is working on him, replacing his missing limbs (after a bad accident) with cybernetic enhancements. Before we know it, a band of mercenaries raid the lab (located on an air ship), led by a man named Akan (Danila Kozlovsky). He claims that Estelle's work is his property, and the big first-person chase begins. Along the way, he is aided by a strange master of disguise named Jimmy (Sharlto Copley). Soon, he finds himself having to rescue Estelle from Akan; a madman bent on destroying the world. Therein lies my first problem with the movie; the villain's motives are just too simple. The villain himself is kinda creepy and effective in his own way though, so it's not all bad. I always thought that the idea for this was an awesome one, especially if you got to see it in 3D, putting you into the action. However, I don't even remember whether or not this was in 3D, and I almost wanna say that it wasn't and that was part of the disappointment after leaving the movie. Beyond that, it cuts pretty abruptly at times, and though it didn't effect me in such a way, and it may go without saying, this isn't good for anyone with motion sickness. If you can handle it all, however, just imagine it as though this was a first-person action game that was adapted to film. It's kinda like the creators looked at the first-person sequence in 'Doom', said "this movie should just be all this", and decided to make it happen, just a little more real-world. There's a lot of high octane stuff going on here. If you can follow close enough, you can really just toss your brain out the window for an hour and a half and enjoy this thrill ride AS Henry. It's not without a fair share of gore for the more violent at heart either. It's another example of how a certain type of video game movie could be done, but it's not a video game. It could stand to run a little bit smoother at times, but I get that it's rough because you're experiencing Henry's position. If you have Amazon Prime (Canada) you can go check it out and judge for yourself. It's a very "in-between" movie, but I tend to lean towards the side that sees it as a simple roller-coaster ride, and nothing much more. 4/5 If you have access to Amazon Prime (Canada), you can go ahead and check this one out right after reading this review. I don't want to over-hype it much, but I'd be lying to you if I said I didn't enjoy this as a whole. I know I squeezed this into an Action Movie Month, but one should probably know that though the action is minimal, when it's on, it's pretty sweet. The film is really more of a character study on the lead, David Collins (Dan Stevens). I have a friend by that name, so it added to a bit of the overall enjoyment of everything. David comes to the home of the Petersons, and the Mother, Laura (Sheila Kelley) invites him in after he claims to have served with her recently deceased son. Further evidence of this is seen in a photograph of the unit they served in together. The father, Spencer (Leland Orser), is reluctant, but eventually accepts him as a guest in their home. Meanwhile, daughter, snooty daughter, Anna (Maika Monroe) and bullied around trope of a son, Luke (Brendan Meyer) don't know what to make of the situation. As the movie unfolds, we learn more and more about David's past. That's interesting enough, but the film tests its audience in a way. All in all, David becomes a very likable character, but in the same way someone like Hannibal Lecter is likable. He does some pretty brutal things to people, but we can't help but route for him a little just because who he's doing it to is a terrible person. The test the film gives you is, who is the terrible person? Is it David, who he attacks, the people who are tracking David down for reasons unknown, or could it even be one of the family members? We get a loose answer around the climax, but it does keep you guessing a little bit. If I have any criticisms about this movie, they are pretty minimal. A lot of it is kind of cliche, and some of the answers end up being sort of obvious once revealed. But I'll be damned if I didn't have a good time watching this, nonetheless. For an idea, it comes to us from a hit-or-miss team; Director, Adam Wingard and Writer, Simon Barrett ('You're Next', 'V/H/S' 1 & 2, 'Blair Witch' 2016, and the 'Q is for Quack' segment of 'The ABC's of Death'). Just about all of their stuff hits this note where, while fun to watch, it's really just a cool execution of a just okay concept - 'Avatar' being the prime example of such a film. I love it, but I can't deny that it's been done before. This is definitely in that category. Some things to point out that give it that extra bump for yours truly begin with the fact that this is a story that takes place around Halloween. That mixes with this moody soundtrack, that in and of itself could be labelled as a Halloween soundtrack. In some ways, this is indeed a Halloween movie. The only thing is that the concept isn't exactly creepy in a Halloween way so much as a Who do I Trust kinda way. The movie isn't something that'll necessarily get you in the mood for the holiday, but the soundtrack just might. I dunno how to describe it, but maybe the darker side of synthwave and techno but with lyrics? Anyway, the point is, the soundtrack is as much a mood-setter as the cinematography - which is also solid here. The action sequences are nice and fluid, not much shaky cam, it's good stuff. So, if you happen to have Amazon Prime, I recommend popping over and checking it out. It's about an hour and a half, and interesting enough for what it is. It's not the best, but it's good for a movie to sit down with a tub of popcorn with and lose yourself to. As mentioned earlier, when the action is on, it's pretty well done. Beyond that, you have a suspense thriller that keeps you guessing (somewhat). I think I'll end up enjoying this one a little bit more than most due to certain biases I have, but I don't think anyone would watch this movie and say it was terrible... of course, I have been wrong about that before. Anyway, if you're looking for something new to watch for Halloween that isn't horror, it's worth a look. 4/5 Although I think most people have at least heard of this title, it is one that seems to have been swept under the rug for whatever reason. It's in that same realm as the original 'Flatliners' in that if you mention it nowadays, it'll sound familiar, but a lot of people haven't seen it. It actually comes to us from writer/producer James Cameron and director Katheryn Bigelow - the once married couple who once battled for an Oscar between 'Avatar' and 'The Hurt Locker' (which won). If the pair behind the film wasn't interesting enough, there's also the rather original plot. I do have a bit of a bias when it comes to "dream-like" material, but the concept here involves a drug dealer type who deals in "dreams", so to speak. These are essentially someone else's real-life memories that can be fed into a machine through their cerebral cortex, and later transmitted back to another user. The user can therefore experience sex without having to think about all that comes with an escort, or the adrenaline from a bank robbery without the danger, or skydiving without having to leave the ground. It's a believable concept. The only catch is, as one might imagine, some of it ends up being "snuff", or as they refer to them, "blackjack clips". A former cop named Lenny Nero (Ralph Fiennes) deals in these illegal mind recordings, buying them up from his supplier, Tick (Richard Edson). In his spare time, he longs for a former escort named Faith (Juliette Lewis) by using his own SQUID (Superconducting Quantum Interference Device) to relive, shall we say, fond memories. Lenny also relies on emotional support from his two friends; Max Peltier (Tom Sizemore), private investigator, and Lornette "Mace" Mason (Angela Bassett), bodyguard and limo driver, who has an unrequited love for him. Meanwhile, another escort named Iris (Brigitte Bako), former friend of Faith's is chased by LAPD officers Burton Steckler (Vincent D'Onofrio) and Dwayne Engelman (William Fichtner), seemingly after her to destroy some sort of important evidence that we learn very quickly she's trying to get to Lenny for research having to do with a mysterious and creepy killer who's using the SQUID during his crimes. The whole thing turns into a sort of noir detective film, with a slight dose of comedy to take the edge off. It's not quite one of those movies you feel like you need a shower after watching, but it's often shady and uncomfortable. Perhaps most interesting is that the story takes place within the final two days of 1999 (this was 1995, so at the time, it was a "near-future" concept) in Los Angeles, where criminal activity has reached an all time high. As you cruise down any street, it's a riot in progress, and it's all race fueled; much of it inspired by the 1992 Rodney King riots. This is all pretty much background stuff, but the importance of it comes through at the end. It's pretty heavy stuff to watch nowadays, mostly because the same message we're trying to get through to everyone now was very present in this movie from 25 years ago. There's actually so much more to say about the film and how it all ties together, but I'd sooner just highly recommend watching it if you haven't yet. It's James Cameron's story and screenplay, sandwiched between 'True Lies' and 'Titanic' in order of release - the latter two titles clearly taking the fame. Although keep in mind, Cameron didn't direct this, Kathryn Bigelow did, the director known for 'Point Break' at the time. It hasn't received very high ratings, and it's often admittedly very odd, and maybe even a little uncomfortable, but for what it is, I really enjoyed it. It was imaginative and dark, but often fun. It was a pretty good balance, but definitely mostly leans toward dark and gritty. I say give it a shot if you like that kind of thing. I found it rather worth it. 4/5 |