It seems to me that a lot of people don't know that Blade is actually a superhero movie on par with X-Men, Daredevil, Punisher and the likes. What all these heroes (and in the case of X-Men, hero group) have in common is that they were all conceived in the magical world of Marvel. Blade was originally a normal person (in a blue outfit) who chased vampires because of a personal grudge and eventually faced off with Dracula himself. He was, for lack of a better term, boring. So boring, in fact, that the character was shelved and never used in the Marvel cine-verse. Then the latter half of 1998 came along...
David S. Goyer performed a stroke of genius when he took the character of Blade and turned him into a leather-clad dark knight. He can't take all the credit though and much of this must go to Stephen Norrington as well, who with his distinct visual style brings out the best of the character. The Blade character (Wesley Snipes) is pretty amazing in this film and mixes martial arts with Batman-like brooding. Snipes is pretty good as the titular character and is successful in bringing out the duality and inner demons of the Day Walker. He is, however, a pretty rigid actor both in voice and in posture and is only interesting enough for the length of one film (which can be attested by the two sequels). Kris Kristofferson is good as well and really brings the tormented character of Whistler to life with energy and a surprising sense of timing. N'Bushe Wright, however, is fairly weak as a leading lady, making her character relatively flat and lifeless. Donal Logue is pretty funny and manages to do a lot with a minor character. German-born Udo Kier should also be mentioned as he brings a lot of finesse and style to the vampire race, probably born of his experiences from playing Dracula. Stephen Dorf provides the best acting in the film and his chilling performance as Deacon Frost stands as one of the best graphic novel villans, ranking right up there with Heath Ledger's Joker.
The story is good and, I feel, renews the vampire genre (something that hasn't been done since...well, who am I kidding? Up until these films, it hasn't been done) by adding a lot of contemporary elements and maintaining the comic book feel. By saying that the film has a "comic book" feel does not mean that the film is unrealistic. Far from it! A lot of effort has been put in trying to make the film seem as real as possible. This does include the effects which are pretty good for their time. Indeed, it was this film that introduced the world to the concept of "Bullet Time," which The Matrix then capitalized on a year later. I found the vampire "dustings" to be a very nice touch. Rather than adding a lot of blood when a vampire expires, Norrington chose to let the vampires spontaneously combust which looks fantastic. The fact that the overall effects were well done adds to the credibility of the film, which would otherwise have fallen flat on its face.
As previously stated Norrington has a very distinct visual style that sets him apart from the directors of the two Blade sequels. Del Toro is nearly as skilled but I prefer Norrington's style. His style gives the film a very special look and feel but most importantly it gives the film atmosphere. A very tense, dark atmosphere which works great--keeping in step both with the brooding of Blade, as well as the heart of the story.
All in all Blade is a very entertaining movie that should have garnered much more recognition than it gained in its original theatrical run. However, a few annoying flaws (which cannot be revealed without spoiling the movie. Suffice to say, many of them are located near the end of the film) do weaken the pace of the film near its ending. To all my fellow comic-book followers, this remains a bloody good time.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Monday, July 2, 2012
Review of "The Avengers" (2012)
This, friends, is the comic book movie that all other comic book movies wish they could be. It's the pinnacle, the ultimate, the surely unsurpassable achievement in its particular oeuvre, a grand adventure full of humor, action, tension, fan service and an undeniable pathos. For anyone fearing that all the hype – years and years worth of hype – might cheapen or otherwise overshadow the final outcome, you may at last be at ease. Because the JOSS WHEDON! AVENGERS MOVIE! is exactly as good as we all hoped it could be.
Maybe even better.
The Avengers, of course, are a superhero team made up of Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans), the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) and the Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson). Other heroes have come and gone amongst this happy few, in comic form, but here all you need to know is that this film serves as kind of a sequel to previous Marvel movies IRON MAN(both 1 and 2), THE INCREDIBLE HULK, THOR and CAPTAIN America, bringing the billionaire Tony Stark, the scientist Bruce Banner, the demigod Thor and the recently defrosted World War II veteran Steve Rogers together to fight against an invading alien threat, alongside spies Clint Barton (Jeremy Denner) and Natasha Romanov (Scarlett Johansson) and under the auspices of Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.
Man, it's awesome. AWE. SOME.
Oh, it's by no means a perfect film. Whedon is perhaps just a shade too in love with S.H.I.E.L.D technology, and the weight of portent which is given to some truly innocuous lines Рespecially the final line Рfeels a little off-kilter. Flashing up a computer image of Natalie Portman's Jane (Thor's love interest from his movie) felt a little like an apology, and the shadowy government hacks who attempt to control Nick Fury are by-the-numbers backroom power players of the Cigarette Smoking Man-school, ruthless and annoyingly clich̩.
Everything else, though? Simply, outstandingly, without a shadow of a doubt incredible.
Just for fun, let's talk acting. All our returning superheroes reprise their roles with ease, Downey Jr. once again a delight as the arrogant billionaire Stark and Evans stoic and earnest as the displaced Cap. The award for Most Improved has to go to Chris Hemsworth, whose Thor is given a chance to rock some deadpan wit here, and rock it he surprisingly does. Johansson, of course, is gorgeous and ass-kicking as ever in her Black Widow leather, but is happily also given new levels of intriguing backstory at which to hint and play out, and her friend Hawkeye is given somewhat more to do here than he was allowed in Thor, Jeremy Renner's relaxed performance once again worthy of my beloved marksman's bow and arrow. Clark Gregg's mild-mannered Agent Coulson is adorable in his hero worship; meanwhile our main antagonist in this film is Loki, Thor's resentful trickster brother once again played with consummate creepy cool by Tom Hiddleston.
Oh, and hello again Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts! Aren't you funny and great?
Of the newcomers, I will admit to having had some reservations about Mark Ruffalo's Bruce Banner, as I had been a true devotee of Edward Norton's turn in the role, but I am big enough to admit when I am wrong: he was terrific here as the mousey, mild-mannered science guy with a chip on his shoulder, and the uses to which his Hulk was put throughout the course of this movie have almost entirely changed my mind about his place in the Marvel Universe. It was that good. Elsewhere, How I Met Your Mother's Cobie Smulders, as an agent of S. H. I. E. L. D., did a lot with a little – enough to hope we see more of her lithe and loyal lieutenant character in AVENGERS 2.
Indeed, after a rollicking, outrageous, hilarious outing like this one, who wouldn't already be eagerly awaiting a sequel? It is, unequivocally, the best comic book movie I have ever seen (and I've seen, well, all of them). More than that, it is my favorite movie so far this year – whew! I was so hoping BATTLESHIP wouldn't continue to hold that title for too much longer – and one I cannot wait to see again.
Avengers assemble, they say? Audience assemble, I say! And assemble, and assemble, and assemble again…
(And make sure you stay through the credits for the now-expected next-movie teaser… Buffy and Angel fans will be particularly happy, even if they don't quite get the somewhat obscure comic-y reference…)
Maybe even better.
The Avengers, of course, are a superhero team made up of Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans), the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) and the Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson). Other heroes have come and gone amongst this happy few, in comic form, but here all you need to know is that this film serves as kind of a sequel to previous Marvel movies IRON MAN(both 1 and 2), THE INCREDIBLE HULK, THOR and CAPTAIN America, bringing the billionaire Tony Stark, the scientist Bruce Banner, the demigod Thor and the recently defrosted World War II veteran Steve Rogers together to fight against an invading alien threat, alongside spies Clint Barton (Jeremy Denner) and Natasha Romanov (Scarlett Johansson) and under the auspices of Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.
Man, it's awesome. AWE. SOME.
Oh, it's by no means a perfect film. Whedon is perhaps just a shade too in love with S.H.I.E.L.D technology, and the weight of portent which is given to some truly innocuous lines Рespecially the final line Рfeels a little off-kilter. Flashing up a computer image of Natalie Portman's Jane (Thor's love interest from his movie) felt a little like an apology, and the shadowy government hacks who attempt to control Nick Fury are by-the-numbers backroom power players of the Cigarette Smoking Man-school, ruthless and annoyingly clich̩.
Everything else, though? Simply, outstandingly, without a shadow of a doubt incredible.
Just for fun, let's talk acting. All our returning superheroes reprise their roles with ease, Downey Jr. once again a delight as the arrogant billionaire Stark and Evans stoic and earnest as the displaced Cap. The award for Most Improved has to go to Chris Hemsworth, whose Thor is given a chance to rock some deadpan wit here, and rock it he surprisingly does. Johansson, of course, is gorgeous and ass-kicking as ever in her Black Widow leather, but is happily also given new levels of intriguing backstory at which to hint and play out, and her friend Hawkeye is given somewhat more to do here than he was allowed in Thor, Jeremy Renner's relaxed performance once again worthy of my beloved marksman's bow and arrow. Clark Gregg's mild-mannered Agent Coulson is adorable in his hero worship; meanwhile our main antagonist in this film is Loki, Thor's resentful trickster brother once again played with consummate creepy cool by Tom Hiddleston.
Oh, and hello again Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts! Aren't you funny and great?
Of the newcomers, I will admit to having had some reservations about Mark Ruffalo's Bruce Banner, as I had been a true devotee of Edward Norton's turn in the role, but I am big enough to admit when I am wrong: he was terrific here as the mousey, mild-mannered science guy with a chip on his shoulder, and the uses to which his Hulk was put throughout the course of this movie have almost entirely changed my mind about his place in the Marvel Universe. It was that good. Elsewhere, How I Met Your Mother's Cobie Smulders, as an agent of S. H. I. E. L. D., did a lot with a little – enough to hope we see more of her lithe and loyal lieutenant character in AVENGERS 2.
Indeed, after a rollicking, outrageous, hilarious outing like this one, who wouldn't already be eagerly awaiting a sequel? It is, unequivocally, the best comic book movie I have ever seen (and I've seen, well, all of them). More than that, it is my favorite movie so far this year – whew! I was so hoping BATTLESHIP wouldn't continue to hold that title for too much longer – and one I cannot wait to see again.
Avengers assemble, they say? Audience assemble, I say! And assemble, and assemble, and assemble again…
(And make sure you stay through the credits for the now-expected next-movie teaser… Buffy and Angel fans will be particularly happy, even if they don't quite get the somewhat obscure comic-y reference…)
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Review of "The Mummy's Tomb" (1942)
1940's "The Mummy's Hand" featured western actor Tom Tyler as the undead pile of bandages. Tyler (listed eighth in the credits of 'Hand') obviously wasn't being prepped to carry Universal's horror banner into the remainder of the decade. So after the success of "The Wolf Man", and much to his displeasure, Lon Chaney Jr. had to slouch through the gauze for a remarkable 'three' sequels--the remarkable part being that Universal could squeeze so much milk from this particular cash-cow.
Tomb opens with an ample amount of stock footage from 'Mummy's Hand' recapping the important events from that chapter. Seeing old footage in these mummy flicks is no big surprise--the fact that the filmmakers were not shy about reusing the close-ups of Tom Tyler (in makeup) as Kharis did puzzle me. Exactly how thin was the budget for 'Tomb' that some new close-up shots of Chaney as Kharis couldn't be cut into the picture?
George Zucco returns as high priest Andoheb, proving to be nearly as bulletproof as the mummy, having escaped the events of the last movie with 'only' a crushed arm & a full head of hair (maybe he rubbed some tana on his scalp). Also returning is what was already becoming a tedious plot device: The new priest put in charge of Kharis--apparently raging with suppressed libido--becomes enamored with some American skirt & usually suffers some violent (and well deserved) death.
However, it all speeds along at a quickie pace (all of Chaney's mummy pictures barely eclipse the 60 minute mark) and it's supplied with the usual atmosphere & mood music that at this stage of the game make it a good enough occupier of one's time. Of the quartet of Kharis films, 'Tomb' would be my favorite. It's certainly a more atmospheric piece than its predecessor and not bogged down with any of the inane comic relief.
Tomb opens with an ample amount of stock footage from 'Mummy's Hand' recapping the important events from that chapter. Seeing old footage in these mummy flicks is no big surprise--the fact that the filmmakers were not shy about reusing the close-ups of Tom Tyler (in makeup) as Kharis did puzzle me. Exactly how thin was the budget for 'Tomb' that some new close-up shots of Chaney as Kharis couldn't be cut into the picture?
George Zucco returns as high priest Andoheb, proving to be nearly as bulletproof as the mummy, having escaped the events of the last movie with 'only' a crushed arm & a full head of hair (maybe he rubbed some tana on his scalp). Also returning is what was already becoming a tedious plot device: The new priest put in charge of Kharis--apparently raging with suppressed libido--becomes enamored with some American skirt & usually suffers some violent (and well deserved) death.
However, it all speeds along at a quickie pace (all of Chaney's mummy pictures barely eclipse the 60 minute mark) and it's supplied with the usual atmosphere & mood music that at this stage of the game make it a good enough occupier of one's time. Of the quartet of Kharis films, 'Tomb' would be my favorite. It's certainly a more atmospheric piece than its predecessor and not bogged down with any of the inane comic relief.
Review of "Prometheus" (2012)
It is hard to say too much about Prometheus without spoiling it. First of all, those expecting to see the original Aliens are not seeing this movie for all the right reasons. Yes, it is part of the Alien universe and set before the first movie, but it doesn't feature those Aliens and instead tells a brand new story of merging the two worlds together.
With Ridley Scott back to directing, Prometheus used the similar setup of making researchers explore an alien world, only this time there is a longer setup and more suspense driven to events unfolding. The ship in this movie is very reminiscent of the one in Alien, although it is different in design and has some new interesting gadgets and pieces of technology we haven't seen before. There's no denying that there are things people will pick up relating to Alien, and I'm really glad they didn't tone down the violence for PG-13 rated audiences. Either way, you can watch Prometheus first before the other Alien movies.
On the acting side of things, I found Michael Fassbender's Android character David to be the standout for the movie. I also liked the protagonist Noomi Rapace and the supporting cast of Logan Marshall-Green, Charlize Theron, and Idris Elba. All strong performances, but perhaps if there's only one small complaint I could think of, is that maybe the supporting characters didn't get enough development time. Thankfully, Scott and the team keep the movie going at a very good pace with emotional depth at the right moments.
Overall, Prometheus on first viewing was what I expected, a movie using it's original base movie Alien as a structure to produce a new story with new characters/lifeforms to lead up to other Alien story lines. It is highly likely the references will become more obvious in sequels to this, but Prometheus manages to bring a story that works as a standalone but also a prequel at the same time, which is good for all viewing audiences, and I think Scott was trying to bring the grisly/dark atmosphere movies of Alien without being too in your face, which I thought was the right direction for this movie.
With Ridley Scott back to directing, Prometheus used the similar setup of making researchers explore an alien world, only this time there is a longer setup and more suspense driven to events unfolding. The ship in this movie is very reminiscent of the one in Alien, although it is different in design and has some new interesting gadgets and pieces of technology we haven't seen before. There's no denying that there are things people will pick up relating to Alien, and I'm really glad they didn't tone down the violence for PG-13 rated audiences. Either way, you can watch Prometheus first before the other Alien movies.
On the acting side of things, I found Michael Fassbender's Android character David to be the standout for the movie. I also liked the protagonist Noomi Rapace and the supporting cast of Logan Marshall-Green, Charlize Theron, and Idris Elba. All strong performances, but perhaps if there's only one small complaint I could think of, is that maybe the supporting characters didn't get enough development time. Thankfully, Scott and the team keep the movie going at a very good pace with emotional depth at the right moments.
Overall, Prometheus on first viewing was what I expected, a movie using it's original base movie Alien as a structure to produce a new story with new characters/lifeforms to lead up to other Alien story lines. It is highly likely the references will become more obvious in sequels to this, but Prometheus manages to bring a story that works as a standalone but also a prequel at the same time, which is good for all viewing audiences, and I think Scott was trying to bring the grisly/dark atmosphere movies of Alien without being too in your face, which I thought was the right direction for this movie.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Review of "A Bug's Life" (1998)
(originally a response to a movie reviewer who said A Bug's Life was too much, too fast--he was "dazed and exhausted" by the visuals, and seemed to ignore the story completely)
Okay, first off, I'm 30 years old, have a full-time job, a wife and two girls... So maybe I'm nuts and just really good at hiding it...but not only did I NOT come away from A Bug's Life exhausted or dazed, it wasn't until I saw it the second time that I could even begin to truly appreciate the artistry and humour of the spectacular visuals--because the first time I went to see this movie, I got so wrapped up in the story and the characters that I forgot that I was supposed to be sitting there being "wowed" by each frame visually. How can you not empathize with Flik and his road-to-heck-paved-with-good-intentions life? "Heck" indeed, I found myself identifying with that little ant (not to mention some of the other bugs) in a lot more ways than one...and that, in itself, says more to me about what an incredible movie this is than a whole book. Of course, it's beautiful (every blade of grass, the tree, the rain...). Of course, what they can do with technology is amazing (you can read their lips! try it!). But this movie is not just a masterpiece of art and tech, not just an dazzling explosion of movement and color. No, A Bug's Life would be static if it were all that and no story. But, I'm glad to say, it's not!
A Bug's Life has real heart. Yes, there's a lot going on, storyline-wise as well as visually, but that's because the story and characters actually have some depth to them! Just because it's a kids' movie doesn't mean you should have to turn off your brain at the theatre door--kids are smarter than you think! Besides that, I think that the PIXAR crew made this for themselves, even before their kids...and it shows, in the amount of heart in has. This movie is moving, touching, funny, intriguing, and generally engrossing. The character development in such an ensemble cast is amazing, there's a major amount of character growth, and not just of the main character--so rare in animation and often in movies in general. It doesn't hit you over the head with its points once it's made them--every scene, every frame has a reason in the storyline for being there, and there are no gratuitous shots. Not always stating explicitly in words exactly what is going on means subtlety, to me, folks; it means not "dumbing down" your movie and assuming the audience is stupid, which it mostly is not.
All I can think is, if you can see A Bug's Life and not feel anything at all, then you must have never made a big mistake, hurt your friends, had a crush, fallen in love, been frustrated that no one would listen to you, lied to someone you care about, felt like a social misfit, gotten excited over a new idea, come up with a great idea, had what you thought was a great idea backfire, been awkward one moment and confident the next, felt the pressure of responsibility, stood up for yourself and your loved ones, stood alone against the crowd, felt like a failure, felt like a big success, felt the need to make a difference with your life in the lives of others...well, you get the point.
Final words: A+ rating from me! If you love Toy Story you'll most likely love this (PIXAR knows how to make movies with heart); if you do love it see it multiple times or you STILL won't know what you're missing (the amount of detail and subtlety here is considerable); and whenever you're feeling really low, just pretend it's a seed, okay?
Okay, first off, I'm 30 years old, have a full-time job, a wife and two girls... So maybe I'm nuts and just really good at hiding it...but not only did I NOT come away from A Bug's Life exhausted or dazed, it wasn't until I saw it the second time that I could even begin to truly appreciate the artistry and humour of the spectacular visuals--because the first time I went to see this movie, I got so wrapped up in the story and the characters that I forgot that I was supposed to be sitting there being "wowed" by each frame visually. How can you not empathize with Flik and his road-to-heck-paved-with-good-intentions life? "Heck" indeed, I found myself identifying with that little ant (not to mention some of the other bugs) in a lot more ways than one...and that, in itself, says more to me about what an incredible movie this is than a whole book. Of course, it's beautiful (every blade of grass, the tree, the rain...). Of course, what they can do with technology is amazing (you can read their lips! try it!). But this movie is not just a masterpiece of art and tech, not just an dazzling explosion of movement and color. No, A Bug's Life would be static if it were all that and no story. But, I'm glad to say, it's not!
A Bug's Life has real heart. Yes, there's a lot going on, storyline-wise as well as visually, but that's because the story and characters actually have some depth to them! Just because it's a kids' movie doesn't mean you should have to turn off your brain at the theatre door--kids are smarter than you think! Besides that, I think that the PIXAR crew made this for themselves, even before their kids...and it shows, in the amount of heart in has. This movie is moving, touching, funny, intriguing, and generally engrossing. The character development in such an ensemble cast is amazing, there's a major amount of character growth, and not just of the main character--so rare in animation and often in movies in general. It doesn't hit you over the head with its points once it's made them--every scene, every frame has a reason in the storyline for being there, and there are no gratuitous shots. Not always stating explicitly in words exactly what is going on means subtlety, to me, folks; it means not "dumbing down" your movie and assuming the audience is stupid, which it mostly is not.
All I can think is, if you can see A Bug's Life and not feel anything at all, then you must have never made a big mistake, hurt your friends, had a crush, fallen in love, been frustrated that no one would listen to you, lied to someone you care about, felt like a social misfit, gotten excited over a new idea, come up with a great idea, had what you thought was a great idea backfire, been awkward one moment and confident the next, felt the pressure of responsibility, stood up for yourself and your loved ones, stood alone against the crowd, felt like a failure, felt like a big success, felt the need to make a difference with your life in the lives of others...well, you get the point.
Final words: A+ rating from me! If you love Toy Story you'll most likely love this (PIXAR knows how to make movies with heart); if you do love it see it multiple times or you STILL won't know what you're missing (the amount of detail and subtlety here is considerable); and whenever you're feeling really low, just pretend it's a seed, okay?
Review of "Oliver & Company" (1988)
Curiously endearing Disney animated feature inspired by "Oliver Twist", transposing the Dickensian favorite fairly successfully to a modern-day New York setting - with the villainous Bill Sykes as a mobster (flanked by a couple of vicious mastiffs). Stylistically, it lies somewhere between LADY AND THE TRAMP (1955) and the adult-oriented films of Ralph Bakshi (without the sex and violence, naturally); as such, it stands oddly alongside the studio's usual fare from this rather lame era - and its vitality can now be seen to have foreshadowed the renaissance in quality (and critical appraisal) which they witnessed soon after, beginning with THE LITTLE MERMAID (1989). The anthropomorphic characters (which generally swamp the humans - Fagin is very much a good guy here, if still pitiful) are quite nicely fitted to class stereotypes: hence, we get a Hispanic chihauha (with an eye for the ladies) and a posh bulldog, among others, while Dodger is basically an updated version of Tramp and Oliver himself a cute but very brave kitten. The familiar and involved plot is all but jettisoned (especially in its second half) in favor of boisterous action and character comedy, with a bouncy score and rapid pace to match. In the end, it proved surprisingly good - and, at just 74 minutes, short enough not to overstay its welcome.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
"Fright Night" (2011)
Remaining in the same vein as many recent horror outings, "Fright Night" is more of an eerie action comedy than a straight-out scare fest. Good. That's my favorite type, especially considering scares in and of themselves hardly garner a pull anymore. Also, with a title like "Fright Night," we have an understanding with the filmmakers that we're getting one of those throwback horror flicks. You know, the ones that gave the horror genre that fun movie-going reputation it had in the 80′s before tasteless gore and tiresome predictability defiled the genre? This film succeeds on that promise, quickly turning itself into the quintessential "fun" horror flick perfect for Friday night.
Styled after Alfred Hitchcock's "Rear Window" (which inspired its own modern retelling, "Disturbia") with a suave vampire living next-door instead of a mysterious stranger, this plot is very similar to its original. Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin; "Star Trek") is a ex-nerd who has joined 'the cool crowd,' dropping his oldest friend "Evil" Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse; "Kick-Ass") for a hot cheerleader girlfriend (Imogen Poots; "28 Weeks Later"). Things are looking oh-so-grand for the little flake (I mean, come on, any guy who hurtfully tells his friend "the day my life got better was the day I stopped hanging with you" is well a douche), he gets a new next-door neighbor that his mom (Toni Collette; "The Sixth Sense") takes a liking to: Jerry Dandrige (Colin Farrell; "Horrible Bosses"). Now Jerry seems like a cool guy, but as we all know, you don't cast Colin Farrell to be your average next-door neighbor. Ed's attempts to convince Charley that Jerry is actually a vampire fail, but when Ed himself goes missing and Jerry shows proof of what he is, Charley goes to the only person who might have the answer: Peter Vincent (David Tennant; "Doctor Who"), the Las Vegas magician who boasts of supernatural knowledge on how to kill vampires.
The choice to modernize the original 1985 "Fright Night" doesn't like that bright an idea considering the current rule that all horror remakes suck, but somehow this became a unique effort due to diligent actors, a reliable director, and successful laugh and scare gags. It is, without exaggeration, the first great entry in the long line of atrocious horror remakes. It takes what we liked about the original and comes up some clever changes that update the story 26 years to the present.
From an ingenious kill method at the end to wickedly suspenseful chase scenes, "Fright Night" boasts some surprisingly memorable scenes – some of which are incredibly suspenseful considering we think we should know what to expect from a vampire thriller. The opening is a startling 3D shot through dark thunderclouds that ends in an impeccably-executed family massacre. With Craig Gillespie's (the outstanding director of "Lars and the Real Girl") imaginative direction and Ramin Djawadi's (scorer of "Iron Man" and "Mr. Brooks") jarringly effective and wholly memorable musical score, the film hits all the beats it strives for with manic zeal.
The all-star cast deliver a gratifying romp of suspense and chuckles, but the movie belongs to its villain and its anti-hero, Colin Farrell and David Tennant. The rest give solid performances (especially Mintz-Plasse), but they pale compared to the main act.
Colin Farrell, when given the opportunity, revels in the grittiness of villainy whenever he can. For Jerry Dandrige, Farrell is at an all-time evil high and unchains his dark side. Part Hannibal Lector in his charming menace and part Buffalo Bill in his vicious brutality, Farrell carves himself a sweetly unpredictable part filled with great moments (from his menacing way of asking for a six-pack of beer to his ultimate way of overstepping house invitation rules to a great moment where his decision to do absolutely nothing produces far worse results).
The fascinating part about Jerry is he isn't like regular vampires. He seems more inspired by the worst of modern serial killers than mythical killing machines, with his secret torture rooms and closet full of dozens of uniforms signifying authority (from firemen to the post office to the police). He's modern without being "Twilight." He's a ominous hulking mass. Those characteristics mixed together with his bizarre personality create a rather unique Hollywood vampire. Due to this, I wish the "transformation" to full-on vampire face was never included, as it is poor CGI and takes away from Farrell's menace.
David Tennant, who I will admit I adore as the 10th Doctor Who, is a cinematic gem. His acting style has always been that of a Shakespearean extremist, and I can't think of a better role that has such obvious wicked glee in allowing him to let loose. There is something strangely mesmerizing in Tennant's scenes as the vulgar magician-turned-vampire-killer, especially in his first big scene where his vehemence and wide-eyed enthusiasm is outstandingly exaggerated. Also, seeing him acting with a giant shotgun is way more fun than I expected it to be. He's about as entertaining – if not more so – than the performance given by Roddy McDowall.
In the end, what really matters about this movie? Is the movie suspenseful and thrilling? Yes, especially when Jerry really is allowed to let loose his menacing charm and kill with the same love of general violence of a "Reservoir Dogs" character. Is the movie funny when it tries to be? Absolutely. The pop culture references – especially in a crack on "Twilight" and comparing Jerry to the shark from "Jaws" – work particularly well. This is a huge amount of fun. So if you walk into this expecting the right kind of movie, "Fright Night" is that perfect Friday night scare.
Styled after Alfred Hitchcock's "Rear Window" (which inspired its own modern retelling, "Disturbia") with a suave vampire living next-door instead of a mysterious stranger, this plot is very similar to its original. Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin; "Star Trek") is a ex-nerd who has joined 'the cool crowd,' dropping his oldest friend "Evil" Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse; "Kick-Ass") for a hot cheerleader girlfriend (Imogen Poots; "28 Weeks Later"). Things are looking oh-so-grand for the little flake (I mean, come on, any guy who hurtfully tells his friend "the day my life got better was the day I stopped hanging with you" is well a douche), he gets a new next-door neighbor that his mom (Toni Collette; "The Sixth Sense") takes a liking to: Jerry Dandrige (Colin Farrell; "Horrible Bosses"). Now Jerry seems like a cool guy, but as we all know, you don't cast Colin Farrell to be your average next-door neighbor. Ed's attempts to convince Charley that Jerry is actually a vampire fail, but when Ed himself goes missing and Jerry shows proof of what he is, Charley goes to the only person who might have the answer: Peter Vincent (David Tennant; "Doctor Who"), the Las Vegas magician who boasts of supernatural knowledge on how to kill vampires.
The choice to modernize the original 1985 "Fright Night" doesn't like that bright an idea considering the current rule that all horror remakes suck, but somehow this became a unique effort due to diligent actors, a reliable director, and successful laugh and scare gags. It is, without exaggeration, the first great entry in the long line of atrocious horror remakes. It takes what we liked about the original and comes up some clever changes that update the story 26 years to the present.
From an ingenious kill method at the end to wickedly suspenseful chase scenes, "Fright Night" boasts some surprisingly memorable scenes – some of which are incredibly suspenseful considering we think we should know what to expect from a vampire thriller. The opening is a startling 3D shot through dark thunderclouds that ends in an impeccably-executed family massacre. With Craig Gillespie's (the outstanding director of "Lars and the Real Girl") imaginative direction and Ramin Djawadi's (scorer of "Iron Man" and "Mr. Brooks") jarringly effective and wholly memorable musical score, the film hits all the beats it strives for with manic zeal.
The all-star cast deliver a gratifying romp of suspense and chuckles, but the movie belongs to its villain and its anti-hero, Colin Farrell and David Tennant. The rest give solid performances (especially Mintz-Plasse), but they pale compared to the main act.
Colin Farrell, when given the opportunity, revels in the grittiness of villainy whenever he can. For Jerry Dandrige, Farrell is at an all-time evil high and unchains his dark side. Part Hannibal Lector in his charming menace and part Buffalo Bill in his vicious brutality, Farrell carves himself a sweetly unpredictable part filled with great moments (from his menacing way of asking for a six-pack of beer to his ultimate way of overstepping house invitation rules to a great moment where his decision to do absolutely nothing produces far worse results).
The fascinating part about Jerry is he isn't like regular vampires. He seems more inspired by the worst of modern serial killers than mythical killing machines, with his secret torture rooms and closet full of dozens of uniforms signifying authority (from firemen to the post office to the police). He's modern without being "Twilight." He's a ominous hulking mass. Those characteristics mixed together with his bizarre personality create a rather unique Hollywood vampire. Due to this, I wish the "transformation" to full-on vampire face was never included, as it is poor CGI and takes away from Farrell's menace.
David Tennant, who I will admit I adore as the 10th Doctor Who, is a cinematic gem. His acting style has always been that of a Shakespearean extremist, and I can't think of a better role that has such obvious wicked glee in allowing him to let loose. There is something strangely mesmerizing in Tennant's scenes as the vulgar magician-turned-vampire-killer, especially in his first big scene where his vehemence and wide-eyed enthusiasm is outstandingly exaggerated. Also, seeing him acting with a giant shotgun is way more fun than I expected it to be. He's about as entertaining – if not more so – than the performance given by Roddy McDowall.
In the end, what really matters about this movie? Is the movie suspenseful and thrilling? Yes, especially when Jerry really is allowed to let loose his menacing charm and kill with the same love of general violence of a "Reservoir Dogs" character. Is the movie funny when it tries to be? Absolutely. The pop culture references – especially in a crack on "Twilight" and comparing Jerry to the shark from "Jaws" – work particularly well. This is a huge amount of fun. So if you walk into this expecting the right kind of movie, "Fright Night" is that perfect Friday night scare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)