Like a lot of films in which Katherine Waterston is cast as a lead (Queen of Earth and Babysitters being prime examples), this one might meet challenges because of balancing too many genres (thriller, comedy, drama) and tones and being too subtle for a lot of people to appreciate it. However I must say the audiovisual style, casting, acting are great and these same subtlety and multi-layered-ness made this a very enjoyable and rewarding film to which I definitely will return multiple times.
Reviews
14 Reviews
Steve Jobs
(2015)
Great parts, problematic sum
27 January 2016
Was waiting for this movie, which can be seen as a 3rd installment in an Aaron Sorkin trilogy about real-life visionaries which includes "Social Network" and "Moneyball". I loved both those movies and thought Steve Jobs the man was perfect subject for another one - he himself seemed like a larger then life character from Sorkin's page.
With a very skillful and versatile director Danny Boyle and great cast what could go wrong?
Actually I was disappointed. All the parts seemed good - acting, direction, music - but it didn't add up. Sorkin dialogue seemed tired, overwrought and sometimes looking like self-parody. The film seemed artificial. Bret Ellis called this film stillborn and I'd say there is a grain of truth in it. I would say the main reason for this film being "less then sum of its parts" is probably Sorkin screenplay. He just didn't get it right this time, it seems.
However the film is engaging and I was surprised how good and sometimes dark the lead performance by Michael Fassbender was - I was surprised how pathological Jobs looked in some moments. Another reviewer compared him to Jake Gyllenhaal in "Nightcrawler" and funny enough there is something to this comparison, which tells you how abnormal Jobs, at least as portrayed in this film, is.
In the end, a good watch, great performances but could have been more.
With a very skillful and versatile director Danny Boyle and great cast what could go wrong?
Actually I was disappointed. All the parts seemed good - acting, direction, music - but it didn't add up. Sorkin dialogue seemed tired, overwrought and sometimes looking like self-parody. The film seemed artificial. Bret Ellis called this film stillborn and I'd say there is a grain of truth in it. I would say the main reason for this film being "less then sum of its parts" is probably Sorkin screenplay. He just didn't get it right this time, it seems.
However the film is engaging and I was surprised how good and sometimes dark the lead performance by Michael Fassbender was - I was surprised how pathological Jobs looked in some moments. Another reviewer compared him to Jake Gyllenhaal in "Nightcrawler" and funny enough there is something to this comparison, which tells you how abnormal Jobs, at least as portrayed in this film, is.
In the end, a good watch, great performances but could have been more.
Listen Up Philip
(2014)
One of the best and most interesting movies of 2014
17 September 2015
Very ambitious movie with strong performances, very literary screenplay, unique mix of dark humor and drama.
The highlight for me was Ike Zimmerman played by Jonathan Pryce - he was a delight to watch, very darkly charming character, combining anger, narcissism and pettiness with kind of a misanthropic wisdom and genuine warmth toward a protagonist played by Jason Schwartzman.
I appreciated the way movie switched from character to character and changed tone, but honestly for me and most people I watched it with the Ashley section wasn't as interesting as parts with main protagonist and his older mentor. But I respected the fact movie wanted to try more then stick with dark comedy of Philip and Ike sections - and also all parts of the movie veer expertly shot and cut, had great music and were a pleasure to watch.
The highlight for me was Ike Zimmerman played by Jonathan Pryce - he was a delight to watch, very darkly charming character, combining anger, narcissism and pettiness with kind of a misanthropic wisdom and genuine warmth toward a protagonist played by Jason Schwartzman.
I appreciated the way movie switched from character to character and changed tone, but honestly for me and most people I watched it with the Ashley section wasn't as interesting as parts with main protagonist and his older mentor. But I respected the fact movie wanted to try more then stick with dark comedy of Philip and Ike sections - and also all parts of the movie veer expertly shot and cut, had great music and were a pleasure to watch.
The Curse of Downers Grove
(2015)
Surprisingly good Araki-esque darkly humorous thriller
10 September 2015
I knew this movie was co-written by Bret Easton Ellis but didn't expect much - I really hated the title, the IMDb score for this film was very low (which in retrospect seems really sad) and for a host of reasons I thought it was just a journeyman project for Ellis and it would be some kind of standard forgettable slasher.
The first thing I noticed was that screenplay was very literary and contained a lot of recognizable deliberate sentences and mean humor of Bret Ellis (sometimes it got a little too much, i think meth is mentioned like 3 or 4 times in the first 10 minutes of the movie). Then I noticed how surprisingly good the acting in this movie was. In the end a lot of elements in this movie were familiar but delivered with a slight twist and hence worked for me.
The mix of lo-fi look, acting style, dark humor and menacing atmosphere reminded me most of Gregg Araki movies like "Nowhere" but more plot-driven (another reviewer mentioned some stylistic similarities to "Donnie Darko" and "It Follows", but I think Araki movies are the closest comparison). Araki, of course, was influenced by Bret Easton Ellis and was probably the closest cinematic analogue of his prose.
I think it's a shame that in our age of faceless mass-produced genre movies this one, which has a discernible style, has such criminally low IMDb rating and recommend it.
The first thing I noticed was that screenplay was very literary and contained a lot of recognizable deliberate sentences and mean humor of Bret Ellis (sometimes it got a little too much, i think meth is mentioned like 3 or 4 times in the first 10 minutes of the movie). Then I noticed how surprisingly good the acting in this movie was. In the end a lot of elements in this movie were familiar but delivered with a slight twist and hence worked for me.
The mix of lo-fi look, acting style, dark humor and menacing atmosphere reminded me most of Gregg Araki movies like "Nowhere" but more plot-driven (another reviewer mentioned some stylistic similarities to "Donnie Darko" and "It Follows", but I think Araki movies are the closest comparison). Araki, of course, was influenced by Bret Easton Ellis and was probably the closest cinematic analogue of his prose.
I think it's a shame that in our age of faceless mass-produced genre movies this one, which has a discernible style, has such criminally low IMDb rating and recommend it.
Gone Girl
(2014)
Master director elevates familiar material
17 October 2014
The most interesting thing about "Gone girl" for me is the fact that underneath all the director's mastery is kind of a typical twisty thriller that in other hands could have left much weaker impression (you can see "Perfect stranger", for example, to help you imagine how it could look).
This film truly made me think that David Fincher can, if needed, elevate any material, make a very impressive movie almost from any script and, like a magician, make us not see most of its flaws. I'm not saying the source material here is bad, but its screen adaptation certainly could look much less convincing and fresh, much more problematic.
In one interview David Fincher said that he shot 500 hours of footage for this film and this is probably one of the keys to how he does this magic - squeezing everything he can from the cast and the crew.
This is one of David Fincher's best movies although on paper it kind of shouldn't be.
This film truly made me think that David Fincher can, if needed, elevate any material, make a very impressive movie almost from any script and, like a magician, make us not see most of its flaws. I'm not saying the source material here is bad, but its screen adaptation certainly could look much less convincing and fresh, much more problematic.
In one interview David Fincher said that he shot 500 hours of footage for this film and this is probably one of the keys to how he does this magic - squeezing everything he can from the cast and the crew.
This is one of David Fincher's best movies although on paper it kind of shouldn't be.
The Informers
(2008)
A movie people just don't want to see
15 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This movie's reputation is a good example of herd mentality.
The negative critical reaction to it was so overwhelming, that it even its screenwriter Bret Ellis became more and more critical of the film (although he had his own personal drama while trying to get this project made and really disagreed with director's interpretation).
This movie IS an interpretation of the book it is based on and in my opinion, while it might not be the most entertaining interpretation there can be, it is actually very close to the .
The film creates kind of a static feeling, a feeling of relaxation and being frozen in the moment - and it is the same feeling I've got from the book.
Bret Ellis himself wanted a more active and fast-paced movie, and it probably would have been more entertaining, but also probably farther from source material, for better or worse.
Some people have said the script was supposed to be much funnier and movie is too dark in its tone. Well it is subjective, in my opinion the humor is all there and actually it is even better for the dark humor of the situations and dialogue to amplify the darkness and despair.
In my opinion the movie was hated so much to a large degree because people just don't want to see this more ambiguous material on the screen. They want to see more obvious, spelled out stories, heroes, villains, moral messages, powerful climaxes etc - which are not bad things, there are brilliant movies based on these elements, but they are not be all end all of art.
This film, like the book it is based on, shows, explores, sometimes exaggerates and makes fun of - contrasts and conflicts of life, ambiguity of different life situations. What makes both the film and the book interesting is they avoid a lot of the more fake and unnatural literary devices like clear and powerful dramatic conclusions, idealized characters, forced plot.
And people generally don't like this. They want a more clear "heroes" or "villains", they want plot to move quickly, film to have a clear message etc.
But the most interesting thing about this film is there is no clear message like "Drugs are bad, go to school" and characters are more ambiguous. If you are honest with yourself, you won't just write them off as selfish empty people (the reaction to this film and a lot of Ellis prose shows that a lot of people don't want to be honest with themselves) - they are more interesting and while mostly being tragic have a perspective you can understand.
A protagonist is a young guy who has all the money and time he can need and has group sex with very attractive people which, is very seductive. He starts to develop more traditional feelings toward a girl he sleeps with and tries to have more exclusivity with her, which she doesn't want at the moment because she still loves the polygamy and pleasures it brings and also may be too infantile to understand his impulse - also bad things are about to happen to her.
An estranged father played excellently by Chris Isaac is a certain man who was disappointed in marriage and became a bachelor and is hitting on women everywhere without conscious effort and tries to connect with his son, but the man he is, his history with his son and how it has shaped his son's personality make it futile.
Even the scary sociopath played by Billy Bob Thornton has a couple of moments when you understand where's he coming from - like his honest answer "I don't know" to his wife's question "Did you ever love me".
In the end although I like the movie I must say I agree with Bret Ellis that if the movie was at the same time made longer to include more scenes that were shot and some scenes were made faster and less long and heavy it honestly might have benefited and made more rewatchable.
The negative critical reaction to it was so overwhelming, that it even its screenwriter Bret Ellis became more and more critical of the film (although he had his own personal drama while trying to get this project made and really disagreed with director's interpretation).
This movie IS an interpretation of the book it is based on and in my opinion, while it might not be the most entertaining interpretation there can be, it is actually very close to the .
The film creates kind of a static feeling, a feeling of relaxation and being frozen in the moment - and it is the same feeling I've got from the book.
Bret Ellis himself wanted a more active and fast-paced movie, and it probably would have been more entertaining, but also probably farther from source material, for better or worse.
Some people have said the script was supposed to be much funnier and movie is too dark in its tone. Well it is subjective, in my opinion the humor is all there and actually it is even better for the dark humor of the situations and dialogue to amplify the darkness and despair.
In my opinion the movie was hated so much to a large degree because people just don't want to see this more ambiguous material on the screen. They want to see more obvious, spelled out stories, heroes, villains, moral messages, powerful climaxes etc - which are not bad things, there are brilliant movies based on these elements, but they are not be all end all of art.
This film, like the book it is based on, shows, explores, sometimes exaggerates and makes fun of - contrasts and conflicts of life, ambiguity of different life situations. What makes both the film and the book interesting is they avoid a lot of the more fake and unnatural literary devices like clear and powerful dramatic conclusions, idealized characters, forced plot.
And people generally don't like this. They want a more clear "heroes" or "villains", they want plot to move quickly, film to have a clear message etc.
But the most interesting thing about this film is there is no clear message like "Drugs are bad, go to school" and characters are more ambiguous. If you are honest with yourself, you won't just write them off as selfish empty people (the reaction to this film and a lot of Ellis prose shows that a lot of people don't want to be honest with themselves) - they are more interesting and while mostly being tragic have a perspective you can understand.
A protagonist is a young guy who has all the money and time he can need and has group sex with very attractive people which, is very seductive. He starts to develop more traditional feelings toward a girl he sleeps with and tries to have more exclusivity with her, which she doesn't want at the moment because she still loves the polygamy and pleasures it brings and also may be too infantile to understand his impulse - also bad things are about to happen to her.
An estranged father played excellently by Chris Isaac is a certain man who was disappointed in marriage and became a bachelor and is hitting on women everywhere without conscious effort and tries to connect with his son, but the man he is, his history with his son and how it has shaped his son's personality make it futile.
Even the scary sociopath played by Billy Bob Thornton has a couple of moments when you understand where's he coming from - like his honest answer "I don't know" to his wife's question "Did you ever love me".
In the end although I like the movie I must say I agree with Bret Ellis that if the movie was at the same time made longer to include more scenes that were shot and some scenes were made faster and less long and heavy it honestly might have benefited and made more rewatchable.
Bumer
(2003)
A zeitgeist crime movie
11 February 2014
The first and maybe best film from Buslov caught a zeitgeist, became a mega-hit and birthed one of the most popular ringtones in Russia.
This is a classic fatalistic gangster movie about small-time Russian criminals from the nineties who accidentally kill an undercover cop and go into hiding on a stolen black BMW.
This film caught the dusk of the nineties, of the gangster anarchy.
The film's protagonists live by the rules of the nineties, but the rules, the world around them begin to change (part of the change is police and intelligence becoming the dominant "gangs"). The heroes are dinosaurs of the era that is ending but they are not conscious of it.
The whole film can be viewed as a story of new world and new rules marginalizing and destroying the protagonists.
The first half of the film is stronger then the second in my opinion, but all in all this film was made exceptional by unusually natural performances and authentic dialogue compared to other Russian crime movies.
This is a classic fatalistic gangster movie about small-time Russian criminals from the nineties who accidentally kill an undercover cop and go into hiding on a stolen black BMW.
This film caught the dusk of the nineties, of the gangster anarchy.
The film's protagonists live by the rules of the nineties, but the rules, the world around them begin to change (part of the change is police and intelligence becoming the dominant "gangs"). The heroes are dinosaurs of the era that is ending but they are not conscious of it.
The whole film can be viewed as a story of new world and new rules marginalizing and destroying the protagonists.
The first half of the film is stronger then the second in my opinion, but all in all this film was made exceptional by unusually natural performances and authentic dialogue compared to other Russian crime movies.
Cargo 200
(2007)
Great metaphorical darkly humorous horror
11 February 2014
"Cargo 200" is my favorite Balabanov's film.
By showing and perhaps exaggerating a lot of elements director has personally seen in eighties USSR he has created a very successful metaphorical movie.
Most obviously it's of a metaphor for decline of USSR, but even shocking parallels with very recent crimes of Russian policemen the year "Cargo 200" came out had shown that the metaphor is much broader. It is also to a large extent about modern Russia and perhaps even people and society in general.
The genre is mixed, taking horror to the extreme and mixing contrasting details of an era creates an absurdist Pyton-esque humor in a lot of scenes at least for those who can understand it (a lot of Russian viewers and critics didn't get this type of humor, which is much more prevalent in western culture today, popularized by the likes of South Park, more familiar to younger "global Russians").
A lot in this movie from transgressive story to political and historical elements is very provocative and makes it hard for a lot of people to see the movie itself behind all the provocative elements and all the emotional buttons it pushes. Even in comments on IMDb you can see of strong, sometimes outraged, reactions to this movie and they are 10 times stronger in Russia where history is a much more touchy subject, there are more taboos, at least in media, and the view of cinema and humor is generally more conservative.
I personally won't necessarily call it a realist movie, it is a metaphor first and foremost. But a lot of details of the era are very precise - the music, the gorgeously decayed and familiar (if you have lived in Russia) set designs are a pleasure, albeit maybe a perverse one, to observe in this film.
All in all, a lot in "Cargo 200" just works. It was conceived and developed in the right place at the right time, a lot of elements of the movie and historical artifacts and collective memories that inspired it just came together very effectively. Seems like this movie wanted to be created and found a great creator in the late great Aleksey Balabanov, becoming one of his strongest works.
By showing and perhaps exaggerating a lot of elements director has personally seen in eighties USSR he has created a very successful metaphorical movie.
Most obviously it's of a metaphor for decline of USSR, but even shocking parallels with very recent crimes of Russian policemen the year "Cargo 200" came out had shown that the metaphor is much broader. It is also to a large extent about modern Russia and perhaps even people and society in general.
The genre is mixed, taking horror to the extreme and mixing contrasting details of an era creates an absurdist Pyton-esque humor in a lot of scenes at least for those who can understand it (a lot of Russian viewers and critics didn't get this type of humor, which is much more prevalent in western culture today, popularized by the likes of South Park, more familiar to younger "global Russians").
A lot in this movie from transgressive story to political and historical elements is very provocative and makes it hard for a lot of people to see the movie itself behind all the provocative elements and all the emotional buttons it pushes. Even in comments on IMDb you can see of strong, sometimes outraged, reactions to this movie and they are 10 times stronger in Russia where history is a much more touchy subject, there are more taboos, at least in media, and the view of cinema and humor is generally more conservative.
I personally won't necessarily call it a realist movie, it is a metaphor first and foremost. But a lot of details of the era are very precise - the music, the gorgeously decayed and familiar (if you have lived in Russia) set designs are a pleasure, albeit maybe a perverse one, to observe in this film.
All in all, a lot in "Cargo 200" just works. It was conceived and developed in the right place at the right time, a lot of elements of the movie and historical artifacts and collective memories that inspired it just came together very effectively. Seems like this movie wanted to be created and found a great creator in the late great Aleksey Balabanov, becoming one of his strongest works.
Her
(2013)
Good albeit maybe over-hyped and over-hated
23 January 2014
This is probably my favorite Spike Jonze movie. He wrote the screenplay for it himself and as a result it seems simpler, more honest, less pretentious and artificial then his previous efforts based on Charlie Kaufman screenplays.
The theme of love as a subjective experience and implications of it seems to be in the air in this day and age and "Her" captures it as well as some other modern trends, like world improving in a lot of respects, but people not always being able to take an advantage of these improvements.
The acting, especially Joaquim Phoenix, is great, the audiovisual style is great, some moments got me more then others, but all in all this is a solid and worthy effort in my opinion.
The theme of love as a subjective experience and implications of it seems to be in the air in this day and age and "Her" captures it as well as some other modern trends, like world improving in a lot of respects, but people not always being able to take an advantage of these improvements.
The acting, especially Joaquim Phoenix, is great, the audiovisual style is great, some moments got me more then others, but all in all this is a solid and worthy effort in my opinion.
Compliance
(2012)
An effective provocation
19 January 2014
This movie is hard to judge. It looks like it's different from a lot of other films, seems to have a different intent behind it and maybe a different criteria to be judged by.
Everything about this film - from it apparently being very close to actual events that inspired it to minimalist style in which it is shot - seems to have an intent of provoking the strongest reaction it can. And it succeeds as you can see by looking at comments and opinions about this movie.
At some points in this movie I was thinking "this is not art", "this is not how movies are done", but in reality "Compliance" just redefines these things a little.
"Compliance" causes such strong reactions in part because it reminds us of very painful truths about reality.
A lot of people brush the story off, saying the characters are incredibly stupid, but the truth is it reminds us of how vulnerable we all really are to deception and coercion - there are manipulator out there much more skilled then this movie's villain.
I personally was reminded of my own painful contact with small time criminals and sense of paranoia and self-doubt that followed me around after it - I couldn't relax and feel that I can trust myself for some time. Perhaps I wasn't as naive as the characters in this movie and their real life inspirations, but the deception perpetrated on me also was much more skillful, so I was played by criminals anyway.
I said almost nothing about acting, direction, music (which are all quite good) but in my opinion this is a good reflection on how this movie is different. You probably won't be talking about these things a lot after seeing "Compliance", you will be talking about your strong emotional reaction to it, because it was conceived and executed as a provocation and it definitely succeeded as such.
Everything about this film - from it apparently being very close to actual events that inspired it to minimalist style in which it is shot - seems to have an intent of provoking the strongest reaction it can. And it succeeds as you can see by looking at comments and opinions about this movie.
At some points in this movie I was thinking "this is not art", "this is not how movies are done", but in reality "Compliance" just redefines these things a little.
"Compliance" causes such strong reactions in part because it reminds us of very painful truths about reality.
A lot of people brush the story off, saying the characters are incredibly stupid, but the truth is it reminds us of how vulnerable we all really are to deception and coercion - there are manipulator out there much more skilled then this movie's villain.
I personally was reminded of my own painful contact with small time criminals and sense of paranoia and self-doubt that followed me around after it - I couldn't relax and feel that I can trust myself for some time. Perhaps I wasn't as naive as the characters in this movie and their real life inspirations, but the deception perpetrated on me also was much more skillful, so I was played by criminals anyway.
I said almost nothing about acting, direction, music (which are all quite good) but in my opinion this is a good reflection on how this movie is different. You probably won't be talking about these things a lot after seeing "Compliance", you will be talking about your strong emotional reaction to it, because it was conceived and executed as a provocation and it definitely succeeded as such.
Rampage
(2009)
Quite good and anti-Hollywood
24 August 2013
Uwe Boll is compared to Ed Wood and I think it is justified, he has a lot of very annoying habits as a director, his aesthetic sense and/or his skills at cutting movies are off.
And I think these bad habits are still present in "Rampage" (for example, in my opinion the movie would look better and have more tension without all the foreshadowing in the beginning).
However Boll managed to minimize his annoying directorial habits to an acceptable level and create a good movie with its own style. The movie shocks with its nihilistic sensibility and I think it is a biggest sign of the theme being treated in a non-stereotypical way.
This movie has a very non-pretentious style, but actually I think it treats the subject matter of mass murder more non-stereotypically then a more "highbrow" movie like "Elephant".
The actors are good, especially Brendan Fletcher who plays the everyman psycho protagonists, reminds me of young Christian Slater.
I recommend this movie and will check out other higher-rated Boll movies,
And I think these bad habits are still present in "Rampage" (for example, in my opinion the movie would look better and have more tension without all the foreshadowing in the beginning).
However Boll managed to minimize his annoying directorial habits to an acceptable level and create a good movie with its own style. The movie shocks with its nihilistic sensibility and I think it is a biggest sign of the theme being treated in a non-stereotypical way.
This movie has a very non-pretentious style, but actually I think it treats the subject matter of mass murder more non-stereotypically then a more "highbrow" movie like "Elephant".
The actors are good, especially Brendan Fletcher who plays the everyman psycho protagonists, reminds me of young Christian Slater.
I recommend this movie and will check out other higher-rated Boll movies,
I Spit on Your Grave
(2010)
Modern exploitation which I didn't find believable
10 April 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I think I should give the movie some points for being different and making you conflicted about what you see.
This is is subjective, but for me personally violence against the protagonist in the beginning seems like nothing compared to her surreal revenge. So it elicits very mixed feelings in you, you almost start to sympathize with the villains in the second half of the movie.
The biggest problem for me is I didn't find the protagonist's transformation believable.
She becomes some kind of slasher sadist, sure it is only toward people who wronged her, but still I don't get how such character could change so much. From the way she is portrayed in the beginning I would expect some other kind of transformation after a traumatic event. I would at least expect to see more conflicted emotions and less comfort while torturing people from a character, who is not a serial killer with 30 years of experience but just a friendly girl next door.
Maybe the director didn't sell the transformation enough (I won't blame the actress, she seems to be quite good if you look at the scenes by themselves), or maybe it can't be sold.
Anyway, for me the protagonists becomes a completely different character after the traumatic event.
The violence is quite hardcore, I was surprised. I've seen most of the modern gory horror and felt comfortable with it, but some scenes in this film were too much for me, I even activated "chick vision" and couldn't look at the screen, which was very surprising and probably deserves some points, but also makes it harder to objectively judge this film.
This is is subjective, but for me personally violence against the protagonist in the beginning seems like nothing compared to her surreal revenge. So it elicits very mixed feelings in you, you almost start to sympathize with the villains in the second half of the movie.
The biggest problem for me is I didn't find the protagonist's transformation believable.
She becomes some kind of slasher sadist, sure it is only toward people who wronged her, but still I don't get how such character could change so much. From the way she is portrayed in the beginning I would expect some other kind of transformation after a traumatic event. I would at least expect to see more conflicted emotions and less comfort while torturing people from a character, who is not a serial killer with 30 years of experience but just a friendly girl next door.
Maybe the director didn't sell the transformation enough (I won't blame the actress, she seems to be quite good if you look at the scenes by themselves), or maybe it can't be sold.
Anyway, for me the protagonists becomes a completely different character after the traumatic event.
The violence is quite hardcore, I was surprised. I've seen most of the modern gory horror and felt comfortable with it, but some scenes in this film were too much for me, I even activated "chick vision" and couldn't look at the screen, which was very surprising and probably deserves some points, but also makes it harder to objectively judge this film.
Eden Lake
(2008)
Modern Wes Craven style movie with all the problems
1 April 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This film has style and content of 70s Wes Craven movies.
And unfortunately for me it suffers from some of the problems of these movies.
I wanted to like the movie, because I liked the concept. The idea of psycho kids having the most influence and parents basically closing their eyes or enabling the criminal behavior for different reasons is quite true.
The actors, music, cinematography were also solid.
But too much of the plot twists and the way they were executed I found unbelievable. It took me out of the movie time after time. You forgive it once, twice, but at some point you begin to see it won't stop.
And this movie is not a meta construct like "Funny Games" or fantasy like "Wrong Turn", it is done in a realistic style so the unbelievable twists are even harder to explain away.
A lot of moments could have been executed differently and made more believable. Some modern directors can sell the unbelievable moments, but in this one director wasn't always skilled at this.
I actually liked the downer ending, although it also wasn't necessarily the most realistic, at least it was fresh and made an interesting larger statement. Those immoral kids don't grow up in saintly moralistic families and our society doesn't consist of selfless good samaritans or fair and objective parents.
Overall I liked the intentions and not so much the execution. People who give it 1/10 probably have weak stomach, and people who give it 10s and say it's the most intense and powerful thing may not have seen some better crafted films in my opinion, like "Wolf Creek" or aforementioned "Funny Games" (which is an ultimate hard to watch downer movie).
And unfortunately for me it suffers from some of the problems of these movies.
I wanted to like the movie, because I liked the concept. The idea of psycho kids having the most influence and parents basically closing their eyes or enabling the criminal behavior for different reasons is quite true.
The actors, music, cinematography were also solid.
But too much of the plot twists and the way they were executed I found unbelievable. It took me out of the movie time after time. You forgive it once, twice, but at some point you begin to see it won't stop.
And this movie is not a meta construct like "Funny Games" or fantasy like "Wrong Turn", it is done in a realistic style so the unbelievable twists are even harder to explain away.
A lot of moments could have been executed differently and made more believable. Some modern directors can sell the unbelievable moments, but in this one director wasn't always skilled at this.
I actually liked the downer ending, although it also wasn't necessarily the most realistic, at least it was fresh and made an interesting larger statement. Those immoral kids don't grow up in saintly moralistic families and our society doesn't consist of selfless good samaritans or fair and objective parents.
Overall I liked the intentions and not so much the execution. People who give it 1/10 probably have weak stomach, and people who give it 10s and say it's the most intense and powerful thing may not have seen some better crafted films in my opinion, like "Wolf Creek" or aforementioned "Funny Games" (which is an ultimate hard to watch downer movie).
High Tension
(2003)
The best and the worst in modern horror
23 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
For the most of its running time High Tension is probably the most effective of the splat pack horror movies, which I'm a fan of. The music, the pacing, the violent scenes are perfect or near perfect in my opinion. Even borrowing from other films seems to be done just right. The film looks like it's on the level of the greatest horror movies of the past. It just does everything the right way.
But then happens the infamous twist which let us say greatly reduces the effect of everything the film accomplishes before it. The film commits a kind of an artistic suicide. The twist adds something to the film, but the problem is it subtracts much-much more.
So for the most of its running time High Tension is a great movie and then in the end it destroys the great movie, makes it only an okay flawed movie. In some ways this is worse then being mediocre.
Thank god creators of Wolf Creek, for example, didn't ruin their film with a destructive twist like this. Too bad High Tension had a potential to be better than Wolf Creek, as I said, it had the potential to be the best film of its kind, in my opinion.
Today you can see that Alexandre Aja has a pattern of being very talented, having the potential to be the best in his niche, but always making some big missteps in his movies and being not as great as he could have been.
Anyway, all the great scenes are still in High Tension so I can't give it less then 8, at least as a collection of some of the best scenes in its sub-genre. Too bad in this case the whole is less than the sum of parts.
But then happens the infamous twist which let us say greatly reduces the effect of everything the film accomplishes before it. The film commits a kind of an artistic suicide. The twist adds something to the film, but the problem is it subtracts much-much more.
So for the most of its running time High Tension is a great movie and then in the end it destroys the great movie, makes it only an okay flawed movie. In some ways this is worse then being mediocre.
Thank god creators of Wolf Creek, for example, didn't ruin their film with a destructive twist like this. Too bad High Tension had a potential to be better than Wolf Creek, as I said, it had the potential to be the best film of its kind, in my opinion.
Today you can see that Alexandre Aja has a pattern of being very talented, having the potential to be the best in his niche, but always making some big missteps in his movies and being not as great as he could have been.
Anyway, all the great scenes are still in High Tension so I can't give it less then 8, at least as a collection of some of the best scenes in its sub-genre. Too bad in this case the whole is less than the sum of parts.
Tell Your Friends