16 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(01/12/12 1:18am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The latest documentary-style horror movie “The Devil Inside” pulls off a couple of neat tricks in its attempt to distinguish itself. Bonnie Morgan, the contortionist whose character receives the first full exorcism, is a joy (read: a horror) to watch fold herself into a demonic, bone-cracking pretzel.The hints at the characters’ backstories, including that of the protagonist, Isabella, and the two priests function perfectly, each revealing the crack in the armor that leaves them vulnerable to possession. Furthermore, the inclusion of demonic transference — when the demon hops from one body to another — makes for a heart-pumping climax.But none of those virtues could drown out the loud, profane sounds of audience disappointment when the action cut to black. Instead of an ending that does justice to the emphasis on character that made the film compelling, we get a cliffhanger that abandons all loose plot threads and instead redirects the audience to the movie’s companion website, therossifiles.com.And when that, too, proves unsatisfying, we horror junkies are left either to clamor for or dread the inevitable sequel.
(10/27/11 2:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>A steampunk update of “The Three Musketeers”? Surprising, but this remake sizzles with the same romantic, self-indulgent glee that made the first “Pirates of the Caribbean” film such fun to watch, brimming with tongue-in-cheek comments, wry delivery and over-the-top characters.If anything, Paul W.S. Anderson’s movie makes its missteps in being too over-the-top (especially with Orlando Bloom’s malevolently mustachioed Buckingham) and too mischievously anachronistic (17th-century parking tickets? Really?).Don’t be misled by Milla Jovovich’s “Matrix”-like moves in the trailer; she might be quite the action anti-heroine, but the Musketeers didn’t update very much in that department. There’s still just the femme fatale and a pair of angelic love interests. However, the ending scenes do point to a more well-rounded Milady de Winter (Jovovich) in the inevitable sequel(s), which, if Hollywood is kind to us, will be better follow-ups than the “Pirates” films.Overall, it’s adrenaline-pumping fun from start to finish. It’s dressed up pretty in airships, glittery costumes and 17th-century-style gadgets, and it’s narrated by Matthew Macfadyen’s glorious baritone. It’s shallow, but it’s shiny and full of high-octane goodness.
(09/14/11 4:12pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The first season of “Fringe” was an aimless knock-off of “The
X-Files.” Its story arc was indistinct. Its single-episode plots lacked
spice. The character development was so inconsistent that the story
nearly deflated before it got off the ground.
The second season was better, but it was still bogged down by filler episodes. But
the third season was a knock-out punch. It began with episodes that
alternated between two parallel universes and two parallel sets of
characters — a set-up that in less capable hands would’ve given the
audience televisual whiplash. The plot kicked into high gear while the
characters came into their own, and each episode had such a slick visual
style that the images alone were a joy to watch. From opening to
finale, season three is TV sci-fi at its best.
The DVD set comes with a handful of engrossing featurettes and a quirky
gag reel that suggests that the cast and crew of “Fringe” enjoyed making
the show as much as its audience enjoyed watching it.
(09/01/11 12:48am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Few things can kill a scary movie faster than a premature reveal. Particularly when it comes to supernatural horror, showing the “big bad” too early in the movie allows the audience to get used to it before they’ve had a chance to be frightened by it.This is a surprising mistake coming from veteran horror writer/director Guillermo del Toro, whose previous accomplishments all featured a haunting atmosphere, an incredible built-up tension and satisfying horror stories that got under the audience’s skin.Only a few moments in “Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark” manage to capture the slow-built brilliance that is the calling card of Spanish horror (especially the scene with Bailee Madison’s character, Sally, crawling through her sheets, looking for the film’s goblin-like creatures). Madison herself is a wonderful young lead, but Guy Pearce and Katie Holmes, as her father and his girlfriend, basically fade into the background.By the end, the repetitive sequences, disappointing computer-generated creatures and ineffective pacing fail to live up to the Grand Guignol creepshow promised by the film’s artful advertisements.
(08/24/11 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Young American director Cary Fukunaga took a risk in re-adapting Charlotte Brontë’s classic 1847 novel, which had already come to the big and little screens more than 10 times before this version. Yet with only one other feature film to his name (2009’s critical darling “Sin Nombre”), Fukunaga more than rises to the occasion. The film’s shattered timeline, shadowy lighting and suspenseful pacing bring the Gothic elements of the story to the foreground, making it an atmospheric experience that hums with repressed emotion and sexual tension.The DVD and Blu-ray releases of “Jane Eyre” both offer three featurettes, each describing a different element of the film’s artistic anatomy: the cast and crew, the score and the cinematography. Also included are a director’s commentary and deleted scenes. Overall, the special features are a satisfying companion to a captivating film.
(04/28/11 12:35am)
You again
(04/06/11 10:44pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>These are pessimistic times for films with a political message. “Source Code” solves this marketing problem by blunting the edges of both of its topical themes: terrorism and euthanasia. It deals with them gently, keeping the focus on protagonist Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal), his emotional state and the more conventional thriller elements of its story. Luckily, it accomplishes these well. Colter, an army captain unknowingly recruited for a mind-bending mission, is a sympathetic protagonist. The story is compelling (if shaky in terms of sci-fi believability), and the visual style keeps it interesting to watch. What could have been a surprisingly pointed discussion of two hotly debated issues becomes more of a feel-good film than one would have thought possible given the premise.Still, the pacing and characterization are performed skillfully enough to make the film highly satisfying to watch. As a thriller and as a politically reassuring comfort piece, “Source Code” succeeds at what it sets out to do.
(02/24/11 2:21am)
Why they should, might, and won't win
(12/08/10 11:15pm)
WEEKEND breaks down the Top 20 movies of 2010.
(09/23/10 12:15am)
WEEKEND suggests fifteen great underground artists
(09/22/10 11:55pm)
WEEKEND runs down fifteen unappreciated gems
(09/22/10 10:44pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Credit should be given to the person who decided to give Emma Stone her own film. Certainly, the cream of the post-’80s teen movie crop has often been adaptations of classic literature — “Clueless” and “10 Things I Hate About You” come to mind — but drawing from “The Scarlet Letter” would probably repel most of the target audience were it not for Stone’s personal charm.This faith in her ability is well rewarded. Bert V. Royal’s slick, snappy screenplay slides deftly from sweet to snidely sarcastic and showcases Stone’s spot-on delivery. And her co-stars aren’t far behind. Her parents and classmates are a joy to watch, particularly her fiery, foul-mouthed friend Rhiannon (Aly Michalka).The script’s only major shortcoming is its avoidance of a significant part of the story: The “slut” vs. “stud” double standard. Even the whip-smart protagonist makes no comment about it — surprising given the insight she displays throughout the film. Still, its success at handling every other aspect of the story more than makes up for that oversight. Overall, an A film. Easily.
(05/06/10 4:20pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>There’s always something to be said for a movie that knows exactly what it is. That much is true of Samuel Bayer’s re-imagining of the 1984 slasher classic “A Nightmare on Elm Street.”With the good sense not to try to imitate the original, this version’s strength lies in the dreaming.The subtle transitions into the characters’ dreams and the eye-catching dreamscapes lend atmosphere to the film. Its quirky lead actors, who actually look sleep-deprived, make the victims far more sympathetic.Gaining momentum after the main duo begin investigating the deaths, “Nightmare” manages a couple of truly creepy moments mixed in with standard fare. Its attempt to distinguish itself from the original in terms of story, however, have mixed results. What was implicit in Wes Craven’s original — the question of whether or not Freddy Krueger was a child molester — is an overt part of the story in this film, making Freddy a more reality-based threat. Even his appearance is more realistic, looking more like a third-degree burn victim than a supernatural creature. But even more surprising is how blatantly the film plays on rape anxiety, from shots between Nancy’s legs to Freddy’s explicitly sexual one-liners. At best, the realistic take on Krueger pays off in genuinely chilling moments — the explanations of “micro-naps” and post-mortem brain functioning were used in an interesting and frightening way, for instance — and at worst, it results in clunky dialogue and unbelievable character development.The film could’ve done more with some of its dream sequences, and several of the death scenes used too much CGI (it is Michael Bay-produced, after all), but it did make some interesting changes to the original. Overall, it’s worth seeing, but as a solid re-imagining of a horror icon that never quite rises above being just another slasher.
(03/10/10 7:09pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>“Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” has been adapted for the screen so many times that each version of it must go out of its way to distinguish itself from previous incarnations. This — or at least the misguided solution chosen by screenwriter Linda Woolverton — might be part of the problem.Presumably to step out of the shadows of previous versions, this “Wonderland” ignores the original story and fashions a new tale based solely on Lewis Carroll’s “Jabberwocky” poem. The result is a story that is so numbingly regimented that it resembles a choose-your-own-adventure book: “You have arrived at the Red Queen’s castle. To rescue the Mad Hatter, turn to page 32. To look for the vorpal sword, turn to page 63.”While Burton’s quirks encourage rare spurts of brilliance — the Red Queen’s antics, the castles’ exteriors, the bizarre changes in gravity that Alice experiences upon entering Wonderland — his distinctively dark sensibilities do nothing to lift “Wonderland” off the ground. As Alice accomplishes each step in her pre-determined path, it becomes increasingly clear that what feels like exposition is actually the movie. It’s always on the brink of becoming more intense, more innovative, more morbid, more anything — yet no amount of special effects, beautiful images or even Helena Bonham Carter’s special brand of hate/love craziness can move the film beyond its drowsy point-A-to-point-B single-mindedness. It’s strange for a film with so many action sequences, showcased in blurry, unnecessary 3-D, to have so little energy. Even Alice herself seems fatigued; her status as a misfit comes more from flat dialogue than from any emotion. In the end, “Wonderland” lacks the heart of Burton’s best films, and though the visuals are good, they aren’t used with the same effectiveness as in his previous work. This version of Carroll’s story would’ve made more sense as a drawing, a place to showcase a single pleasing image. Instead, what we have is a film that was better in theory than it is in execution.
(12/23/09 12:55am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Although "Inglourious Basterds" bears the trappings of Quentin Tarantino’s other films - a woman exacting sweet revenge, surrounded by interestingly-filmed brutality, set to an unusual (but surprisingly appropriate) soundtrack - this might be his best so far. There’s something about a WWII revenge-fantasy that inevitably resonates with audiences, but even more significant is the ability to make an artfully crafted film also intensely entertaining. The over-the-top performances of Brad Pitt and Christoph Waltz (as Lt. Raine and SS Officer Landa) fit just as well into the 1940s alternate-universe as the understated performance of Mélanie Laurent as Shosanna.The film follows two storylines in Nazi-occupied France: one involving the “Basterds,” a group of Nazi-scalping, Jewish-American soldiers, and one involving Shosanna, a vengeance-minded Jewish cinema owner. Special features include trailers, extended scenes, and a 6-minute version of the film-within-a-film, “Stolz der Nation” (“Nation’s Pride”). The extended scenes add little besides the awkward and frightening sequence in which Goebbels grills Shosanna on why she doesn’t screen his films. The complete “Nation’s Pride,” though unsurprising, does possess cinematic flair (and a gleefully perverted homage to the famous “Odessa steps” sequence). The special edition also contains a round-table discussion with Tarantino, Pitt and critic Elvis Mitchell and a “Making of ‘Nation’s Pride’” featurette, which has Eli Roth (who directed the segment) as Alois von Eichberg, Sylvester Groth as Joseph Goebbels, Julie Dreyfus as Francesca Mondino, and the fabulous Daniel Brühl as Fredrick Zoller. Although a commentary is conspicuously absent, the features overall are thorough and entertaining.
(12/07/09 8:02pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Brothers is yet another example of a film that is advertised as being something completely different than it actually is, and it treats its subject with far more delicacy than its thriller-like trailer would have us believe. Rather than focusing on a forbidden sexual tryst and the husband’s insane jealousy, the story is more about war, and how a ripple effect brings its horrors to everyone involved. When Captain Sam Cahill (Tobey Maguire) is reported dead in Afghanistan, his brother Tommy (Jake Gyllenhaal) tries to take care of his family. Sam was actually a prisoner of war, however, and when he returns, the trauma of the experience causes a mental breakdown in the form of violent jealousy over a supposed affair between his brother and his wife, Grace (Natalie Portman).The film’s strength lies in creating a sense of intimacy between the audience and the characters, using close-ups, heavy silences and meaningful glances, to the point where the tension is almost palpable. All of the characters’ relationships are subjected to a (sometimes painful) closer look, but, surprisingly, it is the couple’s oldest daughter who steals the show. As the precocious but often-overlooked Isabelle Cahill, Bailee Madison is pitch-perfect in every scene, frequently outshining her adult co-stars. That the film ends by addressing only the issues between the brothers and Grace is one of its weaknesses; it is true to the title, but not to the rest of the movie. It’s particularly a shame in the case of Isabelle, whose feelings about Sam and Tommy are among the most fascinating aspects of the film.In general, Brothers succeeds at examining the emotional aftermath of war. Its main shortcoming was in taking on so many character subplots that it didn’t have time to address all of them, and several of the most dynamic plotlines were left in the dust in favor of a cursory confession scene between Sam and Grace. Still, as a multiple-character study, it was an interesting take on the “coming home from war” saga that, more than just putting one human face on the issue, put a whole family.