After such films as "Taxi Driver," "Raging Bull," "Goodfellas," "Casino," and "The Departed," Martin Scorsese is no doubt one of the best filmmakers of our time. His films are so well-constructed, brilliantly acted, and they always get to us soon after we watch them. His latest film is one that has left us in extreme anticipation and excitement. You put together a great cast(including Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Ruffalo, Ben Kingsley, etc.), a nifty script, some bone-chilling visuals and Martin Scorsese, and what do you get? The result is "Shutter Island."
Based on the best-selling novel by Dennis Lehane, "Shutter Island" is about two Federal Marshals, Teddy Daniels and his partner Chuck Aule. Teddy and Chuck have been assigned to a case that revolves around Ashecliffe, a gigantic mental institution in the middle of God knows where on a land called Shutter Island. According to the head staff, including Dr. Cawley and Dr. Naehring, a girl believed to be highly dangerous escaped from Shutter Island, and it is up to Teddy and Chuck to find out where she is. But how can a girl escape a remote island when she was put in a maximum security ward and locked up into a room with a single barred window? And why is Teddy experiencing horrible memories from his past? The truth will be made clear as Teddy and Chuck discover the true intentions of Shutter Island and fight for their survival.
"Shutter Island" is a very different movie for a director like Scorsese. After watching, I was stunned with what he had to offer. This film goes to show you that an extraordinary director can do anything. And the final product is a nicely put together one.
Kill me for thinking so, but this film reminded me very much of director David Lynch during his first film, "Eraserhead." Sure, "Shutter Island" makes much more sense than that film, but when it comes to plot twists and hallucinations, the film is like one big dream, a nightmare in which you can't figure out what's going on until it is time for you to wake up. But when you're at Shutter Island, the nightmare never ends.
Martin Scorsese is no stranger to the thriller genre. He was responsible for the perfect reimagining of "Cape Fear." Now, "Shutter Island" is not Scorsese's best film. However, he is masterful as he creates suspense and builds tension.
I really liked the atmosphere in the film. When we approach Shutter Island, our gut tells us to turn back while we can. But our mind tells us to go inside Ashecliffe and discover what is going on. Let me tell you, the results ain't pretty.
Not only is the movie filled with unsettling visuals, but it's also filled with an all-star cast. This is probably Leonardo DiCaprio's most gut-wrenchingly real and elaborate performance of his career. He brings a realistic tone to Teddy, one that is very disturbing. Teddy's partner, Chuck, is played by Mark Ruffalo, who also does quite well with his part. Ben Kingsley is absolutely perfect as Dr. Cawley. Ebert has said "Kingsley brings an utter menace each time he smiles." Need I say more? The rest of the cast includes Emily Mortimer, Patricia Clarkson, Max von Sydow(The Exorcist!), John Carroll Lynch, Jackie Earle Haley, Michelle Williams(in a very eerie role as Teddy's haunting wife), and Elias Koteas.
I had very different expectations for "Shutter Island." But after I saw it, the result was far beyond what I had expected. After walking out of the theater, the film leaves a lingering sense of dread in you that is hard to wear off. Scorsese is a master of the thriller genre, and he is aided by a stunning cast, a great script, and most of all, a story that is uncommon. In my book, and hopefully in yours, "Shutter Island" is a winner.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Friday the 13th 2009: Jason Is Back!
For critics and non-fans of horror, remakes are easy to criticize and harass. Rob Zombie’s "Halloween," Marcus Nispel’s "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," and Andrew Douglas’s "The Amityville Horror," they have all become victims of the critics. They have all created box-office success, but does it mean they were necessarily good? I must say that I had high hopes for Marcus Nispel’s re-imagining of the all-time classic "Friday the 13th," and I was ready to take on Jason again. Get ready… This gory, fun version of Jason’s everlasting reign of terror is well worth every penny. It’s exactly the opposite of what its title suggests. Consider this reboot of the franchise extremely lucky.
So, in comes the big question: Is this really a remake of the classic 1980 horror film? Actually, no. It’s more of an homage to the original film and its 3 sequels. The plot is different, Mrs. Voorhees is only in the movie for a short 2 to 3 minutes, and Camp Crystal Lake has been changed completely. Let’s go into the plot, huh? It’s been nearly a month, and Clay goes to Crystal Lake to search for his missing sister Whitney. Meanwhile, a group of fun-loving teens head down to a good friend’s summer home for some drinking games, sex, drug use, topless waterskiing, and more. There’s Trent, Jenna, Chewie, Laurence, Chelsea, Nolan, and Bree. What Clay and the others don’t know is that an abandoned piece of land called Camp Crystal Lake is right around the corner, and today is Friday the 13th. And an incredibly strong, terrifying, angry, hockey-masked murderer named Jason Voorhees is not happy with his unwelcome guests. With blood-stained weapons and a sharp intelligence, Jason hunts down the prey and kills them one by one. If any of them want to live past this dreadful night, then they will have to use every possibility of stopping Jason dead in his tracks, and get the hell out of Camp Crystal Lake for good.
This "Friday the 13th" is a true homage to the scariest movies of the series: Parts I, II, III, and IV(The Final Chapter). The kills are gory and thrilling, bringing us back to the good old days, and there’s plenty of the expected sex and female nudity. Everyone knows that if you don’t have the boobs, a slasher movie’s going to suck. Thankfully, this film has healthy doses of skin.
What’s really pissed me off is "Friday the 13th’s" negative reviews. People have been calling it trash, junk, and a dud. First of all, I have something to say to the critics: Stop comparing it to the original and other current horror remakes! And who are they to criticize the movie’s nudity and violence when that’s exactly what the original had, and that turned out to be a classic! Critics have been against the series since 1980. Ever since the original "Friday" was released, they have butchered it with harsh criticism and hatred. So, my advice to the critics: If you don’t like the original "Friday," then you shouldn’t be so rude about this reboot. Don’t see it. It’s entertainment strictly for the fans. Of course, critics have to always spend their money to review any movie out there. And in the end, they still call it “junk.” So, critics, you should be happy that this movie actually tried to be good, and wasn’t the garbage that "Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning," "Jason Goes To Hell: The Final Friday," "Jason X" or "Halloween III: Season of the Witch" was.
And, I also have something to say to those who think that "Friday" was bad. I’m not going to bash you like I did with the critics. Critics piss me off more than you guys, so I’ll give you some friendly advice. If you’re going to go into "Friday the 13th," you need to have a sharp knowledge of what it is. If you’re a fan, I don’t think that you should expect something like "Freddy vs. Jason" or a specific "Friday" sequel. You need to know that this is a new, and different, kind of Jason. He’s stronger, and not a “supernatural zombie,” as "Friday" star Amanda Righetti describes him. If you go into "Friday the 13th" with those notions, then you should have no problem sitting back and enjoying it for what it is.
As much as I loved the entire movie, personally, my favorite part of "Friday the 13th" is the first 20 minutes, one of the coolest horror openings in history. This opening plays like the original’s classic sequel, starting off with a bunch of drunk, sex-crazed teenagers being told the story of how Mama Voorhees got decapitated, and her son Jason, who drowned on Friday the 13th of 1957, returned from the dead to wreak havoc on Camp Crystal Lake, and he roams the camp to this day in search of intruders. You can probably guess what happens next. The beginning of the film is eerie, gory, and it’s no doubt that it’s scary. This is the best opening to a horror film since "When A Stranger Calls" in 1979.
Of course, the best character of Marcus Nispel’s "Friday the 13th" is its villain, our favorite Crystal Lake resident Jason Voorhees. Parts I, II, III, and IV highlighted the times when the murderer(or murderess) actually ran, was ruthless, and truly effective. Then, basically after Part IV, Jason was a slow, and campy, stalker. But, not here. Uh-uh, not here. Jason is a full-throttle, cold-blooded monster that does not take the time to catch up with the victims. He’s right there, in your face, and running after you with his large machete. Now, isn’t that a horror villain we can love? Also, this is possibly Jason at his creepiest, since the film portrays him as incredibly sadistic, making sure that anybody who crosses his path will die a slow, painful, and violent death.
One other thing "Friday" has going for it is a load of humor and horror movie references that only the most jaded genre fan can point out. The sex scenes in the movie had me laughing a lot because they were so over the top, and the drinking jokes were pretty funny. The comedy blends well with the carnage, and that is one of the things that is key for this reboot.
"Friday the 13th’s" murders are in the great spirit of the original’s, and pay tribute to makeup master Tom Savini’s great effects. Everybody in the film falls by Jason’s blade, axe, spear, you name it. And it’s done very well. Before I saw the movie, I thought that it would be gorier than any other Friday film I‘ve ever seen. But comparing to the original movie, it’s surprisingly not as gruesome. Yes, the movie is plenty gory, but the violence, in my opinion, could have gone farther. But in the end, it doesn’t need to be over the top. You need to have at least a few moments of suspense in order to make a good horror film, and the violence is toned down a little bit so the murders can feel realistic and scary. The makeup and special effects department on this movie make sure that the kills look real and fun. Those who have been devoted to the series might feel like they have seen these types of deaths before, but Brad Fuller, producer on the film, hoped that fans would get the stylish kills they remembered with just a touch of life, or newcomers to the series would see deaths that they have never seen before. Basically, the deaths are at the right tone, and there’s nothing wrong here.
Technically, the film’s setting looks terrific. When we are taken back to Camp Crystal Lake after so many years, we sit back in the film, and remember the greatness of Jason’s stalking grounds. Everything the original’s setting had is back on the screen again. I tell you, once you visit this Crystal Lake, you’ll have second thoughts about going to summer camp.
"Friday the 13th’s" characters aren’t completely smart, but that’s part of the fun of revisiting the genre. As a fan, an audience member is always going to yell out at the screen “Don’t do that!,” “Don’t go in there!,” or “Hey, look out! The killer’s right behind you!” Here, we still care for the characters on their way down Jason’s list of victims. Most of them will obviously wind up dying, and we’ll cheer Jason on. But there will always be certain characters that we want to live.
Time to break down a great cast. Jared Padalecki, Amanda Righetti, Danielle Panabaker, and Travis Van Winkle are our leading characters as Clay, Whitney, Jenna, and Trent. I just want to say that I really enjoy Righetti’s performance. She plays the helpless teen so well, and my God, can she scream! Others of the cast include: Aaron Yoo as Chewie, a likeable and funny stoner, Julianna Guill as Bree, the most interesting slutty horror chick on screen, Jonathan Sadowski as Wade, who gives a memorable performance, Ben Feldman as Richie(loved his death), Arlen Escarpeta as Lawrence(This is the token black guy some other horror flicks have. Only this time, you want him to live.), Willa Ford as Chelsea(the topless waterskiing murder is fantastic), and Nick Mennell as Mike. And genre fan Derek Mears plays Jason perfectly. He was just the right guy to play him since Kane Hodder took on the role. He understands this character, and he makes sure that everybody is still afraid of him. Physically and mentally, Mears is perfect in the role. A stellar cast, and a great Jason.
The script is well-written by Damien Shannon and Mark Swift, who wrote down the script for the horror crowd-pleaser "Freddy vs. Jason." Obviously, their script shows that they love and respect the horror genre, and want to get the audience to love this movie. They have created some characters that are funny and sympathetic as they hit Jason’s chopping board. As for Jason himself, Shannon and Swift have orchestrated a great new vision of him that audiences won’t forget.
Director Marcus Nispel, director of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre re-imagining, certainly knows how to set up "Friday the 13th" technically and cast-wise. He’s definitely a fan of the original movies to be sure, and wants the audience to get that craving to return to Camp Crystal Lake to join Jason in his horrifying trail of carnage again.
Some people will go into "Friday the 13th" very skeptical, and others will go into it with high expectations. Some fans will be disappointed while the other fans will have the time of their life. And to those who are completely new to the franchise and Jason legend, I think they’ll love it if they haven’t seen too many horror remakes. The audience is either going to love or hate this movie. But as a die-hard fan of the series, this "Friday" is definitely one to remember. Jason Voorhees is back, and he’s creepier, meaner, and smarter than ever! Now, it‘s time to quote those famous sounds. Ready? …Ch, ch, ch, ch. Ah, ah, ah, ah.
So, in comes the big question: Is this really a remake of the classic 1980 horror film? Actually, no. It’s more of an homage to the original film and its 3 sequels. The plot is different, Mrs. Voorhees is only in the movie for a short 2 to 3 minutes, and Camp Crystal Lake has been changed completely. Let’s go into the plot, huh? It’s been nearly a month, and Clay goes to Crystal Lake to search for his missing sister Whitney. Meanwhile, a group of fun-loving teens head down to a good friend’s summer home for some drinking games, sex, drug use, topless waterskiing, and more. There’s Trent, Jenna, Chewie, Laurence, Chelsea, Nolan, and Bree. What Clay and the others don’t know is that an abandoned piece of land called Camp Crystal Lake is right around the corner, and today is Friday the 13th. And an incredibly strong, terrifying, angry, hockey-masked murderer named Jason Voorhees is not happy with his unwelcome guests. With blood-stained weapons and a sharp intelligence, Jason hunts down the prey and kills them one by one. If any of them want to live past this dreadful night, then they will have to use every possibility of stopping Jason dead in his tracks, and get the hell out of Camp Crystal Lake for good.
This "Friday the 13th" is a true homage to the scariest movies of the series: Parts I, II, III, and IV(The Final Chapter). The kills are gory and thrilling, bringing us back to the good old days, and there’s plenty of the expected sex and female nudity. Everyone knows that if you don’t have the boobs, a slasher movie’s going to suck. Thankfully, this film has healthy doses of skin.
What’s really pissed me off is "Friday the 13th’s" negative reviews. People have been calling it trash, junk, and a dud. First of all, I have something to say to the critics: Stop comparing it to the original and other current horror remakes! And who are they to criticize the movie’s nudity and violence when that’s exactly what the original had, and that turned out to be a classic! Critics have been against the series since 1980. Ever since the original "Friday" was released, they have butchered it with harsh criticism and hatred. So, my advice to the critics: If you don’t like the original "Friday," then you shouldn’t be so rude about this reboot. Don’t see it. It’s entertainment strictly for the fans. Of course, critics have to always spend their money to review any movie out there. And in the end, they still call it “junk.” So, critics, you should be happy that this movie actually tried to be good, and wasn’t the garbage that "Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning," "Jason Goes To Hell: The Final Friday," "Jason X" or "Halloween III: Season of the Witch" was.
And, I also have something to say to those who think that "Friday" was bad. I’m not going to bash you like I did with the critics. Critics piss me off more than you guys, so I’ll give you some friendly advice. If you’re going to go into "Friday the 13th," you need to have a sharp knowledge of what it is. If you’re a fan, I don’t think that you should expect something like "Freddy vs. Jason" or a specific "Friday" sequel. You need to know that this is a new, and different, kind of Jason. He’s stronger, and not a “supernatural zombie,” as "Friday" star Amanda Righetti describes him. If you go into "Friday the 13th" with those notions, then you should have no problem sitting back and enjoying it for what it is.
As much as I loved the entire movie, personally, my favorite part of "Friday the 13th" is the first 20 minutes, one of the coolest horror openings in history. This opening plays like the original’s classic sequel, starting off with a bunch of drunk, sex-crazed teenagers being told the story of how Mama Voorhees got decapitated, and her son Jason, who drowned on Friday the 13th of 1957, returned from the dead to wreak havoc on Camp Crystal Lake, and he roams the camp to this day in search of intruders. You can probably guess what happens next. The beginning of the film is eerie, gory, and it’s no doubt that it’s scary. This is the best opening to a horror film since "When A Stranger Calls" in 1979.
Of course, the best character of Marcus Nispel’s "Friday the 13th" is its villain, our favorite Crystal Lake resident Jason Voorhees. Parts I, II, III, and IV highlighted the times when the murderer(or murderess) actually ran, was ruthless, and truly effective. Then, basically after Part IV, Jason was a slow, and campy, stalker. But, not here. Uh-uh, not here. Jason is a full-throttle, cold-blooded monster that does not take the time to catch up with the victims. He’s right there, in your face, and running after you with his large machete. Now, isn’t that a horror villain we can love? Also, this is possibly Jason at his creepiest, since the film portrays him as incredibly sadistic, making sure that anybody who crosses his path will die a slow, painful, and violent death.
One other thing "Friday" has going for it is a load of humor and horror movie references that only the most jaded genre fan can point out. The sex scenes in the movie had me laughing a lot because they were so over the top, and the drinking jokes were pretty funny. The comedy blends well with the carnage, and that is one of the things that is key for this reboot.
"Friday the 13th’s" murders are in the great spirit of the original’s, and pay tribute to makeup master Tom Savini’s great effects. Everybody in the film falls by Jason’s blade, axe, spear, you name it. And it’s done very well. Before I saw the movie, I thought that it would be gorier than any other Friday film I‘ve ever seen. But comparing to the original movie, it’s surprisingly not as gruesome. Yes, the movie is plenty gory, but the violence, in my opinion, could have gone farther. But in the end, it doesn’t need to be over the top. You need to have at least a few moments of suspense in order to make a good horror film, and the violence is toned down a little bit so the murders can feel realistic and scary. The makeup and special effects department on this movie make sure that the kills look real and fun. Those who have been devoted to the series might feel like they have seen these types of deaths before, but Brad Fuller, producer on the film, hoped that fans would get the stylish kills they remembered with just a touch of life, or newcomers to the series would see deaths that they have never seen before. Basically, the deaths are at the right tone, and there’s nothing wrong here.
Technically, the film’s setting looks terrific. When we are taken back to Camp Crystal Lake after so many years, we sit back in the film, and remember the greatness of Jason’s stalking grounds. Everything the original’s setting had is back on the screen again. I tell you, once you visit this Crystal Lake, you’ll have second thoughts about going to summer camp.
"Friday the 13th’s" characters aren’t completely smart, but that’s part of the fun of revisiting the genre. As a fan, an audience member is always going to yell out at the screen “Don’t do that!,” “Don’t go in there!,” or “Hey, look out! The killer’s right behind you!” Here, we still care for the characters on their way down Jason’s list of victims. Most of them will obviously wind up dying, and we’ll cheer Jason on. But there will always be certain characters that we want to live.
Time to break down a great cast. Jared Padalecki, Amanda Righetti, Danielle Panabaker, and Travis Van Winkle are our leading characters as Clay, Whitney, Jenna, and Trent. I just want to say that I really enjoy Righetti’s performance. She plays the helpless teen so well, and my God, can she scream! Others of the cast include: Aaron Yoo as Chewie, a likeable and funny stoner, Julianna Guill as Bree, the most interesting slutty horror chick on screen, Jonathan Sadowski as Wade, who gives a memorable performance, Ben Feldman as Richie(loved his death), Arlen Escarpeta as Lawrence(This is the token black guy some other horror flicks have. Only this time, you want him to live.), Willa Ford as Chelsea(the topless waterskiing murder is fantastic), and Nick Mennell as Mike. And genre fan Derek Mears plays Jason perfectly. He was just the right guy to play him since Kane Hodder took on the role. He understands this character, and he makes sure that everybody is still afraid of him. Physically and mentally, Mears is perfect in the role. A stellar cast, and a great Jason.
The script is well-written by Damien Shannon and Mark Swift, who wrote down the script for the horror crowd-pleaser "Freddy vs. Jason." Obviously, their script shows that they love and respect the horror genre, and want to get the audience to love this movie. They have created some characters that are funny and sympathetic as they hit Jason’s chopping board. As for Jason himself, Shannon and Swift have orchestrated a great new vision of him that audiences won’t forget.
Director Marcus Nispel, director of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre re-imagining, certainly knows how to set up "Friday the 13th" technically and cast-wise. He’s definitely a fan of the original movies to be sure, and wants the audience to get that craving to return to Camp Crystal Lake to join Jason in his horrifying trail of carnage again.
Some people will go into "Friday the 13th" very skeptical, and others will go into it with high expectations. Some fans will be disappointed while the other fans will have the time of their life. And to those who are completely new to the franchise and Jason legend, I think they’ll love it if they haven’t seen too many horror remakes. The audience is either going to love or hate this movie. But as a die-hard fan of the series, this "Friday" is definitely one to remember. Jason Voorhees is back, and he’s creepier, meaner, and smarter than ever! Now, it‘s time to quote those famous sounds. Ready? …Ch, ch, ch, ch. Ah, ah, ah, ah.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
The Wolfman Is A Howling Good Time!
Every Universal Studios monster has been resurrected for remakes, ranging from Dracula to Frankenstein. But the one monster that wasn't brought back to life was The Wolfman, one that I had wanted to see again for a very long time. The 1941 film is classic horror, and when it was announced that 2010 would see the rebirth of this wonderful film, I was quite excited. After nearly two years of anticipation and news, the final product of "The Wolfman" is a fun little surprise with humor, energy, and plenty of scares and gore.
After the gruesome death of of his brother, actor Lawrence Talbot returns to Blackmoor, England after many years to make peace with his father, Sir John Talbot, and help his brother's fiancee, Gwen Conliffe, find out what killed his sibling. Many believe that the attacker was simply a madman who enhanced the injuries of his victim to make it seem that an animal is the culprit. But one night, Lawrence is attacked by a savage beast, perhaps a rabid dog. Lawrence's wounds are harsh, but then his wounds heal quite quickly, and things happen to him that take over his mind, his senses, and his personality. Nothing can save him, not even psychological treatment or the love of Gwen. For in a matter of 28 days, Lawrence will become a monstrous being that feeds on other life every time the moon is full.
"The Wolfman" is a very fun and stylish horror film that fans of old-school horror should love. For what reasons does this film gain my critical acclaim?
First, the acting is great. Benicio Del Toro is very good as Lawrence, and it is a performance that the great Lon Chaney Jr. would be proud of. Del Toro provides a tone of sympathy and sadness to this character that I don't think others could have done with the role. You care about Lawrence, and you ask yourself "Why him?" That is the reason why Del Toro's performance works. Anthony Hopkins, as always, is awesome as Sir John. When you have Hannibal Lecter(Hopkins's character in "The Silence of the Lambs" for which he won an Oscar in 1991) in a horror film, you can't go wrong. Hopkins is creepy in this role, and you begin to feel suspicious about Sir John right from the beginning. When we first meet him, we begin to wonder if he is hiding something from his son, and if so, we are anxious to discover what it is. But Sir John is also charming and witty in his diabolical ways. Way to go, Anthony! As for the role of Gwen Conliffe, Emily Blunt is properly cast. While she is sultry, Blunt makes you care about Gwen, something that other heroines have a problem with in other horror films nowadays. British actor Hugo Weaving is entertaining as Inspector Aberline, making us laugh at times. And last but not least, the gypsy Maleva is played by Geraldine Chaplin, Charlie Chaplin's daughter. Chaplin adapts the gypsy accent well, and although she doesn't have as much screen time as the gypsy in the original film, she is good with what she is given.
Another aspect of the film I admire is the production design by Rick Heinrichs. One reason we go to the movies is to be immersed in the experience, to be taken away into the film's world. And while I was watching "The Wolfman," I felt like I was in 1800's England. The setting brings an eerie Gothic feel that has a certain authenticity.
A problem with some monster movies, such as the abominable "Van Helsing," is the effects come off as cartoonish, especially when a person has to transform into a monster. Another reason I love "The Wolfman" is because the makeup effects are fantastic. Why, you ask? Because the man behind it all is mastermind Rick Baker, known best for his notorious makeup in "An American Werewolf In London." Now, the transformations here are not as painful and weirdly realistic as the ones in AAWIL. But when Del Toro transforms, it is anything but campy. It is, at times, painful to watch the transformation, while it is also in the style of a classic B-movie.
And for those of you who love a little bit of gore in your horror movies, you won't be disappointed here. The movie is quite scary, but is also extremely bloody when it has to be. The gore isn't as over-the-top as it is in other genre flicks, but when this werewolf attacks, he is not a tame dog.
Music in a horror film is crucial. Either the movie sucks without it or it can be very disturbing with it. After going through many composers, director Joe Johnston chose the music of the ingenious Danny Elfman, who provided very effective music for a lot of Tim Burton's films. Elfman's score for "The Wolfman" is essential in that it sets the tone for an old-school scary movie. I'll be damned if Elfman's music for this film isn't praised.
I think every monster movie has a moral or metaphor hidden in it. It's no doubt that "The Wolfman" has a recognizable meaning. The story represents the bad side of human nature, how insanely violent and angry we can be. It is a metaphor for man's primal animalistic tendencies. While several other films can explore this metaphor, it is evident that "The Wolfman" boasts the best example of it.
Of greatest significance, "The Wolfman" is directed greatly by Joe Johnston, director of such films as "The Rocketeer," "Jumanji" and "Jurassic Park III." While the film went through serious development problems, the biggest predicament was finding the right director. After bouncing from Mark Romanek("One Hour Photo") to Brett Ratner("Red Dragon"), it seemed the best person to handle the material was Mr. Johnston, and what a great decision that was. His direction is stellar as he handles the film the right way, with care.
Overall, "The Wolfman" could have been an epic failure after the many challenges it faced to make it. But this year has been the best year for horror flicks, and this film joins the list of one of the best. It remains true to the original "Wolfman," but doesn't copy it. Instead, it stands on its own as a nifty little horror film that I believe many will be satisfied with. Not since "Ginger Snaps" have we had a good werewolf movie, and "The Wolfman" proves that there is still life in the subgenre. Instead of subjecting yourself to the senseless "Valentine's Day," get your dose of monster madness with this awesome film. Thank you, Universal Studios, for bringing back a classic cinematic monster.
After the gruesome death of of his brother, actor Lawrence Talbot returns to Blackmoor, England after many years to make peace with his father, Sir John Talbot, and help his brother's fiancee, Gwen Conliffe, find out what killed his sibling. Many believe that the attacker was simply a madman who enhanced the injuries of his victim to make it seem that an animal is the culprit. But one night, Lawrence is attacked by a savage beast, perhaps a rabid dog. Lawrence's wounds are harsh, but then his wounds heal quite quickly, and things happen to him that take over his mind, his senses, and his personality. Nothing can save him, not even psychological treatment or the love of Gwen. For in a matter of 28 days, Lawrence will become a monstrous being that feeds on other life every time the moon is full.
"The Wolfman" is a very fun and stylish horror film that fans of old-school horror should love. For what reasons does this film gain my critical acclaim?
First, the acting is great. Benicio Del Toro is very good as Lawrence, and it is a performance that the great Lon Chaney Jr. would be proud of. Del Toro provides a tone of sympathy and sadness to this character that I don't think others could have done with the role. You care about Lawrence, and you ask yourself "Why him?" That is the reason why Del Toro's performance works. Anthony Hopkins, as always, is awesome as Sir John. When you have Hannibal Lecter(Hopkins's character in "The Silence of the Lambs" for which he won an Oscar in 1991) in a horror film, you can't go wrong. Hopkins is creepy in this role, and you begin to feel suspicious about Sir John right from the beginning. When we first meet him, we begin to wonder if he is hiding something from his son, and if so, we are anxious to discover what it is. But Sir John is also charming and witty in his diabolical ways. Way to go, Anthony! As for the role of Gwen Conliffe, Emily Blunt is properly cast. While she is sultry, Blunt makes you care about Gwen, something that other heroines have a problem with in other horror films nowadays. British actor Hugo Weaving is entertaining as Inspector Aberline, making us laugh at times. And last but not least, the gypsy Maleva is played by Geraldine Chaplin, Charlie Chaplin's daughter. Chaplin adapts the gypsy accent well, and although she doesn't have as much screen time as the gypsy in the original film, she is good with what she is given.
Another aspect of the film I admire is the production design by Rick Heinrichs. One reason we go to the movies is to be immersed in the experience, to be taken away into the film's world. And while I was watching "The Wolfman," I felt like I was in 1800's England. The setting brings an eerie Gothic feel that has a certain authenticity.
A problem with some monster movies, such as the abominable "Van Helsing," is the effects come off as cartoonish, especially when a person has to transform into a monster. Another reason I love "The Wolfman" is because the makeup effects are fantastic. Why, you ask? Because the man behind it all is mastermind Rick Baker, known best for his notorious makeup in "An American Werewolf In London." Now, the transformations here are not as painful and weirdly realistic as the ones in AAWIL. But when Del Toro transforms, it is anything but campy. It is, at times, painful to watch the transformation, while it is also in the style of a classic B-movie.
And for those of you who love a little bit of gore in your horror movies, you won't be disappointed here. The movie is quite scary, but is also extremely bloody when it has to be. The gore isn't as over-the-top as it is in other genre flicks, but when this werewolf attacks, he is not a tame dog.
Music in a horror film is crucial. Either the movie sucks without it or it can be very disturbing with it. After going through many composers, director Joe Johnston chose the music of the ingenious Danny Elfman, who provided very effective music for a lot of Tim Burton's films. Elfman's score for "The Wolfman" is essential in that it sets the tone for an old-school scary movie. I'll be damned if Elfman's music for this film isn't praised.
I think every monster movie has a moral or metaphor hidden in it. It's no doubt that "The Wolfman" has a recognizable meaning. The story represents the bad side of human nature, how insanely violent and angry we can be. It is a metaphor for man's primal animalistic tendencies. While several other films can explore this metaphor, it is evident that "The Wolfman" boasts the best example of it.
Of greatest significance, "The Wolfman" is directed greatly by Joe Johnston, director of such films as "The Rocketeer," "Jumanji" and "Jurassic Park III." While the film went through serious development problems, the biggest predicament was finding the right director. After bouncing from Mark Romanek("One Hour Photo") to Brett Ratner("Red Dragon"), it seemed the best person to handle the material was Mr. Johnston, and what a great decision that was. His direction is stellar as he handles the film the right way, with care.
Overall, "The Wolfman" could have been an epic failure after the many challenges it faced to make it. But this year has been the best year for horror flicks, and this film joins the list of one of the best. It remains true to the original "Wolfman," but doesn't copy it. Instead, it stands on its own as a nifty little horror film that I believe many will be satisfied with. Not since "Ginger Snaps" have we had a good werewolf movie, and "The Wolfman" proves that there is still life in the subgenre. Instead of subjecting yourself to the senseless "Valentine's Day," get your dose of monster madness with this awesome film. Thank you, Universal Studios, for bringing back a classic cinematic monster.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)