In the land of unasked for and unneeded remakes we have our newest entry – Annie. It was interesting to initial reactions to this particular remake as the traditional white girl with freckles and red curly hair was being replaced with a black girl with her brown curly hair. Original stories talked about how producers Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith wanted their daughter Willow in the role. Ah Hollywood nepotism and the Smith family. Karate Kid, After Earth (*shudder*), and then Annie. We add Jay Z to the mix for – reasons – to help produce the movie. I kind of like to imagine that Jay Z was the reason Willow isn’t flipping her hair back and forth and instead we got a different young actress.
If you are not familiar with the original 1982 movie, comic strip, or musical from 1976, or comic strip from 1924 it is the story of Little Orphan Annie. Surprise I know! It covers the adventures of a young girl, her dog Sandy, her benefactor “Daddy” Warbucks, and a few other characters that would be extraordinarily racist these days.
For the new film, we have couple of updates. She’s no longer an Orphan, she is a Foster kid. The satire of the New Deal and FDR is gone, replaced with mobile phones, modern politics, and social media. Also gone is the risk and the charm. Replacing it is a sense of bitterness of the world.
From an acting perspective, it doesn’t suck. Quvenzhane Wallis is the bright spot in this film. She really does light up the screen the way Annie should. She affects peoples lives around her the way that Annie should. She is everything I wanted from an Annie. Rose Byrne (X-Men First Class, Damages, Insidious) plays Warbucks assistant Grace and seems to be the only person really trying to have fun aside from the kids. Both Jamie Foxx and Cameron Diaz I think were given wrong notes by the director. Diaz plays obnoxiously over the top for the better part of the film finally coming down to a low simmer in Act III. Diaz may be a good actress but she is no Carol Burnett. Foxx for his part seemed to miss the mark on how to perform; which is odd for such a talented man. Where everyone else was singing in an almost Glee sense as if it was part of the scene, Foxx sings and performs his songs as if he is on stage – which creates a serious disconnect with the costars.
That disconnect continues through most every performance in the film. Sometimes they break the 4th wall, sometimes they don’t. Sometimes people react to those singing. Sometimes they don’t. It is all so random and arbitrary as to if the song is Glee style, performance style, or improv. It just doesn’t make sense as to when or where people will react to the songs being performed. That makes the performances awkward to watch and at times uncomfortable because you don’t know the rules. Only one or two are an exception to this and even they don’t make sense. Most of this of course falls on director Will Gluck.
I am really not sure how Gluck got the unfortunate seat at the table on this one. His directorial roles stick to RomCom fare with Easy A and Friends with Benefits. He has produced more but none of them are musicals. So most, if not all, the problems with this film come down to Gluck and the producers not having a good idea of what to do, or how to do it. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that the Smith’s checked out after Willow wasn’t cast. I would have thought Jay Z or Will would have better been able to influence the musical moments with their own experience, but apparently not.
TL;DR
The movie is an awkward, uncomfortable mess. It has so many tonal shifts and character shifts you have trouble keeping up and have no real desire to. In a common critique of modern films, it takes no risks. I remember the original where Annie was on the train tracks being threatened by Rooster (Tim Curry) and for a moment I was actually worried and felt real threat. Nothing comes close to that here. It’s as if Hollywood is afraid to show any form of risk or harm.
The movie suffers and honestly, isn’t that good. I can’t recommend the film to anyone – even if there are a few bright spots, because so many just fall flat or are painful to sit through.
Alright as we begin this review let me remind people of the rules:
No spoilers from me. Even if I want to.
I don’t typically read the book. It’s rare when I do. This lets me judge a movie strictly on its merits as a film.
So where do I judge this film? I don’t think it will be long into this review before you know how, but let us go through the motions. I say go through the motions as much with Hunger Games, you are either 3 or 5 movies in and thus committed to this franchise. I have absolutely no illusions I will keep anyone from seeing this or encourage someone to see it who is not already invested. The reality is I was just as invested, which is why I saw this. I am freelance, no one pays me. I see what I want, when I want, and review what I want. Phenomenal cosmic power, itty bitty budget.
I think there was a time that Peter Jackson was heralded as being the savior of the Fantasy Genre. We have come here not to praise Jackson, but to bury him. Bury him in the mounds of money he has made on our faith. Bury him under the weight of his own misguided creativity. Jackson has stepped over the line from savior to damnation. He has saved us from films such as Eragon only to deliver us into the hands of a three movie franchise for something that at most should have been two. George Lucas has stepped aside from franchise and good will destroying madman to allow the King of Hobbits to take the throne. Any goodwill that Jackson built with the first franchise has long since been thrust into the fires of Mt. Doom. The movie with Jackson at the helm and at the pen, fails on so many levels.
But if you are still with me, allow me to explain:
Peter Jackson is director, producer, and screenplay writer. With his collaborators (and wife) Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, and Guillermo del Toro. This is a fantastic combination for two things – cranking out the works of Tolkien into something digestible to the mass market and not being able to say no to each others ideas. I am sure there was some disagreement in the writing circle, thats inescapable. But if you are a writer like me, your friends can be the worst people to have read your work. They will support bad ideas (usually) and tell you how great it is when what you really need is the one friend who says “No.” I don’t think this crew had that. I don’t think they put limits on themselves and the studio certainly wasn’t about to after the dragons hoarde of money they have raked in over the past decade.
Background done, the movie fails on the simple level of evocative storytelling. A writer must have an understanding of the rollercoaster that is their story. There are rises and falls. Beats and pauses. This movie lacks that. I grew up in Maryland with my grandparents and due to that I watched probably more war movies from the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s than most kids my age. I have seen all the greats. I have seen all the new greats in that genre as well. What they all have in common is the action beats are interrupted by relatively long pauses to let you breathe, to let you grasp what is going on, and most importantly to make you care and get to know the characters that are in this plight. Let me take you to Saving Private Ryan for a moment. A modern classic and that is an opinion that is hard to argue. I would be willing to bet most people have a character they remember and like. For me it was the sniper. I got him and his death was powerful and meaningful. Another film. Enemy At the Gates, under rated movie of Russians vs. Germans about one of the greatest snipers that has ever lived. Again everyone on both sides you get to know them and care or wish for their death. Classic film from a time before mine – Battle of the Bulge. Fantastic (in more ways than one) movie. You meet both sides and even can learn sympathy for some of the Germans in it, which is nigh unheard of at the time.
Not so here. I couldn’t tell you who half of the people were in the over an hour of battle this movie gives you. I also couldn’t care. Filli, Killi – which is which? It doesn’t matter. The movie doesn’t let you care. There was no stake in this film. There was no passion to the story to let me care beyond a cursory level if *anyone* lived or died. The movie had no risk because you knew some characters couldn’t die. The ones beyond that you couldn’t care about, with few exceptions thanks to the actors. The story didn’t do them justice.
Second major failure. If you want to introduce things not in the book, by all means do so. I *encourage* it. You will be damned if you mirror the book near perfect (Zack Snyder) or deviate wildly (Jackson here). Might as well take the risk and do something fascinating; just make sure it is fascinating and for the love of all that you hold dear – have a plan. If you want to introduce all these new elements make sure you know what to do with them when you have to wrap the bow around the whole package. There were too many stories started here and so few of them were closed. There won’t be another film so why leave them hanging?
Now these two failures combined pretty much left me bored and not caring. There are other factors I will get too in a minute. The movie succeeds in two places. The first is Martin Freeman. I know he is not at risk, but at all times he makes me care. He manages to strike the chords that make me feel something while watching this. His acting is fantastic end to end without ever missing a beat that he is on screen. The second is Evangeline Lilly as Tauriel. Yes I know she is created for the film, but again she actually makes me care. I wish there was more to her and for her to work with because it actually worked.
No one else did. Really. They didn’t. Even Armitage a Thorin just doesn’t really do it. He gets close, but he almost tries too hard.
From a technical standpoint please allow me to say: DEAR GOD WHAT HAPPENED TO BIGATURES?! CGI IS NOT THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING!!!! It along with your high frame rate and 3D makes every single flaw look even worse. It isn’t good. If Manu Bennet (who is awesome in person) is wearing a make up while playing Azog its a really bad make up because it looks CG. If the make up is only enhanced by CG, then they failed. It looked bad. It looked really bad. Honestly, not a single shot in the movie looked good. They were trying too hard. They tried so hard they hit the ridiculous barrier. It wasn’t SyFy movie of the week bad, but it was way too much money spent on it bad. With all that WETA digital has done over the years, they apparently have not mastered light. It made every shot “enhanced” by the artificial light look worse. The CG horseback ride, was easy to see the green screen!
Creature design. What. The. Frak. It was patently ridiculous. I remember the first time you gave us a Cave Troll. It was bloody terrifying, even if it doesn’t hold up. The Battle of Helms deep?
TL;DR
As I said before you will see this anyway if you were going to. If you were on the fence, please heed my advice – Don’t see it.
I don’t actually hate the film, but I can’t give it more than an Ok. It didn’t make me smile. It didn’t actually entertain with only a handful of scenes as an exception. It gave me a solid meh and only a few eye watering moments to show for it.
If you absolutely must see this movie; if it is a moral imperative of Chris Knight proportions then go see it. Avoid the high resolution/frame rate, there were times it almost made me nauseous. 3D is ok, but you can save SOME money by catching the 2D and I don’t think you’ll be too upset.
So there it is…the end of a trilogy (hexology?). It started epic and ends with a whimper.
This is a 3 review week folks. Today you get the Pyramid, Wednesday you get the Hobbit (Goddess help me), and Thursday or Friday you will get Annie (Its a hard knock life for me). Now obviously, this film came out a few weeks ago, but I had neither the desire nor time to see it when it first came out. Tonight, I really wanted a break from DragonAge:Inquisition (120 hours does that). Only one of the theatre managers at my local cinema was in, but we chatted and he tried to warn me. Was he right?
In what seems to be quickly becoming the trend in found footage genre, Archaeology! Reminder, if I could have any other career – it probably would be archaeology. Archaeologists discover something, go exploring against better judgement, and bad things happen with a hint of a supernatural bent. Archaeologists are our new paranormal researchers. Maybe we will get someone to go to the Mausoleum of Qin Shi Huang? Petra? Some lost site in ancient Persia, with the Iranian and Iraqi conflicts as a back drop? Perhaps the Shore Temple in Mahabalipuram, India? Chavin in Peru? All of these places are ripe for it. I mean we’ve already had the Catacombs beneath Paris and now Egypt.
Really the synopsis is the same. So called Archaeologists, one who prefers old techniques and his daughter who believes in state of the art, uncover an unusual pyramid with only 3 facings amidst the Arab Spring and events in Cairo. They are far enough away and honestly, based on the satellite image they showed, I am not sure they were actually in egypt but it was only a glimpse; yet that provides a pressure based backdrop to allow for poor decisions. Really beyond that and the film crew with them trying to get a documentary on the unusual pyramid and these new techniques for discovery we’ve tread this ground before. They enter the pyramid. They get trapped. Something is in there with them. These are not spoilers, this is in the trailer. Bad things happen.
It’s almost like Thunderdome, X people enter. Y people leave. The uninspired script is by Daniel Meersand (nada to credit really) and collaborator Nick Simon (same deal). I won’t say the script was bad, but it was uninspired. You need to make at least some of the characters likeable for me to wonder if they will live; or more precisely care if they die. I shouldn’t be eager to watch them die just for them to shut up. Every – last – one just needed to die. Combinations of ignorance, self righteousness, and general panic just made for bad combinations in dialogue and personalities. Along with that many of the questions the movie tries to ask are never quite answered. Plots are introduced, but never followed up on satisfactorily or at all. They become just another wasted detail.
Obviously the writers can’t take all the blame, but they will get most of it here. First time director Gregory Levasseur is no stranger to horror, as he was a writer on films such as High/Haute Tension, The Hills Have Eyes, and P2. With that pedigree I expect something more. I also think he might be able to be blamed for script decisions. A writer who is now a director should have seen the script and known to make changes. If he did make the changes that result in this final product, then he is equally to blame. If he ignored problems and filmed as is with only minor edits, then by omission of action he is guilty. I also must blame him for the performances he coaxed out of his actors. None of it worked. Honestly, nothing in this movie worked.
Even the acting was mediocre at best. I would list the actors, but I don’t want to chance ruining them for people if they have actually seen anything these individuals are in. There’s just so many bad decisions made and the performances they give only amplify my aggravation. Compounding that is some fairly horrific CG work at times. It just fails.
TL;DR
This movie fails on every conceivable level, beyond its pure concept. I love the concept, the mystery of a lost pyramid of a design we’ve never seen before? Buried in such a way it must predate the trio on the Giza plateau? Awesome. Then…well failing on every other possible level.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t hate the movie. That kind of vitriol is saved for other films. I was just bored and annoyed. I would expect to see this as a SyFy movie of the week. Actually – thats about it. This is a SyFy movie of the week with a better production budget. If you want to see this done better – see As Above, So Below.
Do not enter the Pyramid folks. The curse is boredom and annoyance.
I apologize for the semi fake out on the title everyone. I have not seen this movie, nor am I going to; what I want to do is tell you why *you* shouldn’t see it. I have been planning this rant / boycott effort for months now and still never settled on what I was going to say. I want this to be eloquent yet short enough you read it. I want it to stick in your mind but not be shoved down your throat. Please bear with me those who keep reading. I will even have a TL;DR at the bottom as usual.
You may notice I will be trying to be painfully careful with my words here. Using more words than might be needed. I have seen several other posts on this topic where the concepts of Race/Ethnicity/Skin Color/Heritage begin to blend and be used interchangeably. There is a fascinating article over on Io9 on such a topic here, admittedly the author does blend the two a little bit more than I think they realized or wanted. I also admit as I write this longer I may do the same – so I apologize again.
Hollywood has a problem. It loves to white wash cultural history. Now if you are not familiar with the term white washing beyond painting a picket fence white, it is the concept of placing a white or rather Caucasian European into a role that could also be played by someone of any other skin colour and in fact probably should be played by someone of another ethnicity or level of melanin in their skin based on genetics. This was most famous in older Hollywood films with black face, red face, and other methods to cast white actors in roles that should go to people that are being portrayed. Now in some context this could be almost excused due to societal bias at the time.
I think excused is the wrong word here, it should neither be excused nor forgiven. Instead remembered as being wrong. Remembered as being racism, plain and simple.
Much like Disney’s Song of the South is all but banned in the United States for it’s extraordinarily strong racist overtones, other Hollywood films had similar racist and white washing behaviors. If you aren’t sure what I am talking about – The Ten Commandments (direct corollary to the film we are discussing sort of) with Charlton Heston as Moses, Yul Brenner (He’s Russian folks) as Ramses, and Anne Baxter as Nefretiri. Warner Oland in the old 1930’s Charlie Chan movies, David Carradine beating out Bruce Lee for Kung Fu, Mickey Rooney as Mr Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany’s. Of course there is Sir Laurence Olivier as Othello, John Wayne as Genghis Khan…the list goes on. (source: my own IMDB research, Buzzfeed , and Smosh ).
You might say, or hopefully just hear the argument – Times have changed! Have they really? Excluding Exodus for the moment, let’s look at Avatar the Last Airbender the movie. Two white actors ( I use that word loosely here) were cast as what should be Inuit or native arctic circle people. This is intentional, as the rest of their village seems to be right. The animated series has four distinct cultures and countries displayed throughout, yet the movie white washes the main casting for no rational reason. Arnold Vosloo as the Mummy? He’s fun, but he is South African. Even more recently (and more lamented) The Lone Ranger with Johnny Depp as Tonto. Now, this isn’t disparaging his performance, but instead the casting. How many Native actors would have wanted that role? Could have had that role. But no it goes to a man who for all intents and purposes is Caucasian Western European – despite any heritage. Sorry I think half of the people I know claim to be XX% Native American. What of Dominic Cooper in The Devil’s Due or Dracula Untold? Great actor (bad roles sometimes) but really?
Why was this done? Well…the Producers mostly. They don’t think that non white people are bankable in these roles. Think I am interpreting something that isn’t there? Lets take this quote from Ridley Scott himself on Exodus.
Scott, 77, previously said of Exodus: Gods and Kings: “I can’t mount a film of this budget, where I have to rely on tax rebates in Spain, and say that my lead actor is Mohammad so-and-so from such-and-such. I’m just not going to get it financed. So the question doesn’t even come up.” (Source: The Guardian )
Hollywood does not cast main actors who are not white in major films because they don’t think we, as an American audience, will see it without that. Hellboy, for instance, had an entire character created just to be the audience foil. The FBI agent was there because they didn’t think we’d be able to identify with the host of characters without our white male lead. So with Exodus we get Christian Bale as Moses because, thanks to Batman, he is bankable. We don’t get to a single non Caucasian Western European until you get into the tertiary characters.
Please don’t try to argue that Sigourney Weaver or Ben Kingsley are bankable right now? They are fantastic actors, I love them both, but do they put butts in seats? Lets look at the casting of Ramses. Joel Edgerton what has he done? Actually quite a bit as a secondary character. He is another good, solid, talented actor – but really does he have an audience draw to put butts in seats? How many of you could tell me without checking IMDB that he was in the Great Gatsby, Zero Dark Thirty, or Star Wars Episode 3? I don’t imagine there are too many hands raised in front of the computers. So we had to cast him? I am not doubting his talent. I am doubting the choice and others when we have:
Oded Fehr (Israeli) , Faran Tahir (Pakistani), even Wentworth Miller (Syrian/Lebanese), Salma Hayek, Tony Shaloub, Corte Di Pablo (Chilean, but famous for playing Ziva David on NCIS), Natalie Portman (Israeli). I would even take Greek actors such as Melina Kanakaredes. Most of this list would at least give credence to Scott’s other even worse excuse for the casting choices (source: Yahoo)
Q: What was in your mind when you set about creating this international cast?
Egypt was – as it is now – a confluence of cultures, as a result of being a crossroads geographically between Africa, the Middle East and Europe. We cast major actors from different ethnicities to reflect this diversity of culture, from Iranians to Spaniards to Arabs. There are many different theories about the ethnicity of the Egyptian people, and we had a lot of discussions about how to best represent the culture.
Now…Scott himself is taking all of this criticism from other more famous sources than I in stride. In fact at The NY Premiere on December 7th he told Critics to “Get a life” (Source: The Guardian )
Is Hollywood the only problem here? No. We are as an audience. Surprisingly Christian Bale gets it and can sum it up quite well:
“I don’t think fingers should be pointed, but we should all look at ourselves and say, ‘Are we supporting wonderful actors in films by north African and Middle Eastern film-makers and actors, because there are some fantastic actors out there.
“If people start supporting those films more and more, then financiers in the market will follow. The audience has to show financiers that they will be there, and [then] they could make a large-budget film.
“To me, that would be a day of celebration. For the actors, it would be wonderful. It would be a wonderful day for humanity, but also for films and for storytelling in general.” (Source: The Guardian)
We have the power here people. We have the power to make this change and tell Hollywood we WANT to see representation of more diverse individuals in our movies. Many of the people I know complain about this sort of thing, but don’t know how to do something about it…so let me get to the
TL;DR
If we want to fix white washing in Hollywood – Boycott this movie. DON’T See it. Don’t rent it. Don’t buy it. Tell your friends not to see it. Tell your family not see it. The movie IS problematic and we can be part of the solution to that problem through the simple act of – not doing anything. We don’t have to see it. We can tell Hollywood producers and Ridley Scott that we want change by not seeing it. Let the movie bomb and bomb hard.
If you want to see a similar film (albeit with similar casting choices for voices) that is done better and at least depicts people of the right colors and shows some levels of cultural awareness – see Prince of Egypt instead. It is an awesomely underrated animated film from the late 90’s.
If you decide to see it, if you absolutely want to and are OK with the problem – I get it. It’s not your problem to have. I hope you enjoy it and get your monies worth. If nothing else with this post I hope I have made you think a bit. Maybe opened a few eyes to some problems out there – and they are problems.
Sorry for the longer than usual post, but I am passionate on this. I love movies, but I want to see them get better not stick to old stereotypes of casting.
PS: Thanks to Sorah Shibao Art for being my editor on this one. I have the ‘luxury’ of white privilege and didn’t want to be talking out my rear.
Most of you are readily familiar with my reviews, for those new to the page bear with me. I love writing reviews. They are a hobby which I want to turn into something more. There are movies of course which I watch and wonder “whats the point?”. In some cases it is because it is so bad no one wants to see it. In some cases it is so obscure even if you wanted to see it you couldn’t. There are some films, which despite my best efforts you will see *coughs* Bayformers *coughs* and Hollywood will take as a check to make another despite anything else. Then there are movies like Mockingjay.
In Hollywoods ever growing quest for a chance to milk a franchise for every drop of its sweet, precious, blood they have taken to a new trend of splitting the finale film into two. Twilight, Harry Potter, Hunger Games, and even Marvel is doing it with the Infinity War. Though it has not yet been announced the Divergent finale, Allegiant will probably be split in two. I would be surprised if it wasn’t. Don’t get me started on the Hobbit where we took one movie and made it into three. Of the ones made already, Hobbit included, the first of the films tends to have an issue.
It’s dull.
Not saying it is a bad movie, but that they use the film to lay all the groundwork for the epic finale. There’s enough action you are not entirely bored. You are already invested in the characters thus far and for once you do get a deeper amount of time with most of them, but at the same time they lack a certain punch. They lack a real weight because you know they aren’t over. Mockingjay is no different. Oh there’s some action here, but not to the level or intensity we’ve gotten used to. This one tries for more emotional punches and a lot of focus on Katniss after the events of the past two movies.
The story of course is by Suzanne Collins who also adapted it for the screen. There’s two screenplay credits with The Town’s Peter Craig and Danny Strong. Strong was Jonathan on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but has also become a talented writer with Lee Daniels’ The Butler as a written by credit. So with the idea of this particular story needing to be told in mind, these two men are a perfect choice. They do have a keen sense of drama and how to use action to accent it and that is what Mockingjay is – a drama with action added to ease the tension that is building for us until Part II.
Good writing only takes you part of the way with Francis Lawrence taking up the directors chair again after his success on Catching Fire. I also think we get to see his weak points a bit more, much like we did with I Am Legend. We have a very solid film here, with very solid – well – everything. The movie is just lacking something and I think thats a combination of the director, writer, and producers not having a clean and clear idea on how to appropriately split the movie into two. We also have enough tonal shifts and pacing issues in the movie to make it a bit jarring at times. The opening to close shifts just a bit too much and it runs a bit too long in the tooth.
Saving it from these technical, production, and directorial issues are the actors. Ok. Actor. Jennifer Lawrence. 1 Academy award, two nominations and two Golden Globes, with one additional nomination make us think she might be a good actress. This movie reminds us she is. She carries the film and is beautifully doing what she does. Every emotion feels real. Nothing is phoned in or left to chance with her. She just is that good and has no choice but to carry the movie as the rest of the cast, while good, don’t have nearly enough development or screen time. I would have rather seen more of Woody Harrelson’s Haymitch, Elizabeth Banks Effie, and certainly more of Sam Claflin’s Finnick. That boy exudes charisma even when he is pulling it all in. Hutcherson, Hemsworth, Sutherland, Hoffman, Moore, and Tucci all do well enough and really could phone it in if they wanted to. Hutcherson does get a few beats and I enjoyed what I saw there. For my Natalie Dormer fans, yeah there is not enough Cressida, but what we do get is excellent and a huge departure from her Tyrell role. All of the actors do well with what they were given. I can’t say I am a fan of Hemsworth but honestly, I am finding more and more I am not a fan of the Hemsworth clan outside of Thor. All of the power in the film resides with Lawrence. Banks and Harrelson get some shining moments that I wanted so much more of that I was disappointed I didn’t get it.
Not much to talk on the technicals. Nothing new, but at the same time nothing bad either. Actually, I type corrected. The make up effects. Flawless. Not surprised with Ve Neill in charge. Season 1 Face/Off winner Conor McCullagh gets a credit as Key Make Up Artist, with my personal favourite Face/Off contestant Laura Dandridge having a special make up effects artist credit. Glen Hetricks Optic Nerve studios was also involved. We are all better for it. There are a few choice shots were some amazing talent were needed and the effects are subtle going through it so they were worth mention. I know this is a review of Hunger Games, but I have to give credit to Face/Off for actually furthering careers of really talented people.
TL;DR?
As I said before, there are movies like Mockingjay. Face it, you are already invested and nothing in my review will stop you from seeing it. Nor should anything in my review stop you from seeing it. You need to for the finale which by all accounts should be filled with enough action and intensity to make you want to cry.
If you haven’t gotten into Hunger Games before, this one is NOT the one to start with. Then again who starts with the 3rd movie out of four?
Otherwise, yeah go see it and be the completionist. It is a solid film but suffers what I now dub The Deathly Hollows curse. Good but not great. Solid, but not quite fun or entertaining. It exists as a filler and placeholder for additional material coming soon to a theatre near you. I did enjoy it, but I wasn’t blown away by any one thing.
So there we go. May the odds be ever in your favor.
Sure this movie came out two weeks ago, but I hadn’t had a chance to see it, and honestly – I wasn’t all that interested. Someone I consider a friend at my local theatre recommended it last night when I saw John Wick again. I believe her exact words were: “Why aren’t you seeing Nightcrawler instead?” So here we go, went back tonight and saw it.
Was it worth it?
Well this has a writer/director combo credit with Dan Gilroy, who for me is a mixed bag of work. I like his work on Freejack and Real Steel, but am not a fan of Bourne Legacy. He is also credited with the screenplay for The Fall, which a friend recommends, but I haven’t seen. The odd thing here is that the body of work I am familiar with is nothing even remotely like this film. They are bright, sharp, even sarcastic, but not this moody, gritty, and intense psychological piece. Perhaps it is because the others are studio films and this is not, instead it is a truly indy film that got a wide release and distribution at the theatres. The film has a rather low production budget of only $8.5 million, which as made up on it’s opening weekend.
The story focuses on Louis Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal), a down on his luck man living in LA. During his quest to find a job he comes across an accident on the highway and watches a freelance/stringer film crew grab for footage of the moment to sell it to a TV station. The idea crosses his mind that he can do this too and he recruits a second in Rick Garcia (Rick Garcia…no I am not kidding) to help him navigate while he tries to be the first on the scene and get better, bloodier footage to sell to news producer Nina Romina (Rene Russo). His success grows as does his ambition – what will he do for a check, for his ego?
More on that in a second.
I want to talk about performances. There’s only one worth mentioning here and thats Gyllenhaal. I have not seen nearly enough of his body of work, but with Prisoners, Zodiac, Jarhead, and Donnie Darko to his credit he has shown a huge range of dramatic roles requiring different facets of his ability to execute them well. This film gave him yet another facet to explore and give us and that is of someone like Louis. People might be tempted to compare his acting in this to Ryan Gosling in Drive or Only God Forgives. While both show incredible reserved performances I would be forced to disagree as Jake gives us both reserved but an incredibly nuanced performance that shows great levels of emotion and the psychology of his character with rather deft skill. I spent the entire time watching the film trying to understand what makes him tick, even in act three when he tells us (or does he?) what makes him work. It’s a fantastic performance that everyone else tries to keep up with.
Most of the cast could be credited as themselves if they were not playing just slightly fictional versions of their own lives; with many of the local Los Angeles news personnel playing themselves. The more major actors, such as Rene Russo and Bill Paxton are playing secondary roles within the film that truly centers on, lives, and breathes because of Gyllenhaal. Anyone could have played those parts with little effort or change in the outcome, I am not sure about Jake’s part.
From a technical perspective the film hits it’s most major snag from a wide audience acceptance point of view. It is slow. This is a psychological drama with the pacing to match and I was quite honestly bored more than a few times in the movie. It’s shot well, acted well, even written well, but it’s just so slow that it almost becomes unwatchable. If you do watch it though, it does leave you with some questions. The entire drive home I kept thinking
“What would I do?” / “What could I do?”
So from that perspective I can speak to the movies writing as it made me think, by its design, even if it bored me the rest of the time. I think at its heart aside from the psychology of the main actor the movie is a subtle satire on modern news and it’s audiences. What sells. What we consume. What we want to see even if we say otherwise. What the news gives us because it is what we tell them we want by our ratings. There’s something interesting in that line of thinking and I am curious if it is intentional satire or I am just overthinking it.
TL;DR?
Nightcrawler is an interesting movie that makes you think. I cannot and will not say I was really entertained by it, but I was intellectually stimulated by it. I sort of expected that going into the movie to not see something actiony, but that it would be dramatic. The movie more than a few times made me feel uncomfortable in a not good way – which I think it should. What is it with October movies this year making me feel uncomfortable and “off”, between this and Fury. Both films really do not hold back on the what if. I have to thank my friend next time I see her, because while I didn’t necessarily enjoy the movie; I enjoyed the concepts and performance. I suppose that is something.
Do I recommend you see it though?
Some – but you need to know what you are getting into. This is a very cerebral film that is designed to make you think and do a little introspection. If you enjoy such things then yes, see the movie. You might be bored at times, but the payoff is there for discussion with like minded individuals.
If you don’t like that kind of movie or want something a bit better paced – give it a pass. Nightcrawler is a good, well made, and mostly well executed movie, but not entirely a watchable one for most audiences. Ironic, I think, that a movie about what the media gives us and what we want them to give us is not a movie most people want to or will see.
If you have already seen it, let me know in the comments. I would love to discuss with you! Bearing in mind the comments are not spoiler free zones. Read at your own risk.
First, as in before we get into the review, let me give you the teaser that got me interested in this film in the first place. Since most of you have not likely even heard of this film, it can provide a good grounding.
Ok, now that this is established the trailer sold me on a certain mood for the film and a certain tone that I should expect. Daniel Radcliffe seems to be rocking the American accent and well, lets face it the horns look interesting. I had no idea it was based on a book (until the trailer spelled it out and still hadn’t heard of it), but then again what isn’t these days. Sadly this film is largely indy and only has had limited release so even if most of you want to see it after the review you may not be able to. I have been waiting weeks to see this and one of the art house style theatres in Tucson was actually showing it. I had to admit I was surprised. So my surprise aside in the fact it was being shown, do I regret seeing it?
The story is written by Stephen Kings son, Joseph Hillstrom King, aka Joe Hill. That said it explains why the movie was set in a place that could be Maine, but could have been the pacific northwest. Now when I say story, I mean the novel and story credit. The screenplay, under Hill’s eyes was adapted by a man named Keith Bunin who has almost literally done nothing else in the industry.
The story focuses on Ig “Iggy” Parrish, a boy in love with a girl in a town that doesn’t want him – especially after her brutal murder. He swears he didn’t commit the murder and no one but one of his best friends since childhood believes him. After a particularly bad night Ig wakes up with …well Horns. Not just that but they seem to have power over others, power he hopes he can use to find the person truly responsible for the death of his one true love Merrin.
So at its heart the movie is a murder mystery wrapped in young adult horror, romance, and the blackest comedy. Which underlies the problem of the movie. It runs a two full hours and feels it. I don’t know what tone they were going for, but its a mixed bag across all of those genre’s. It is also not subtle in the least, which I don’t know is to blame on the source material or director Alexandre Aja. He too is a mixed bag where I don’t know quite what to expect of his films and now as I write this I think that might be intentional. Aja has previously directed Haute Tension, released in the US as High Tension which was considered fairly good by those who I’ve spoken to about it. At the same time he gave us the 2006 remake of The Hills Have Eyes, Mirrors in 2008 (don’t remember it, no one else does either) and the ever infamous Piranha 3D in 2010. Piranha I think covers a portion of his style quite aptly. There is ridiculous humor, disturbing to look at horror/gore, and then the spring break T&A over the top.
Thats it. He goes over the top. He goes to 11. The downside is, I think, he needs someone to turn the dial back down. The movie starts out this beautifully moody, atmospheric piece of art. It then descends into his fathers tropes of the childhood friends with the requisite “fat kid” who is almost never called by his own name. The flashbacks are, for their part, bright and colourful while the current time frame is always a bit darker and a bit more grey. To this he gets credit in intelligent design choices. He also loses those points for the films lack of anything resembling subtly. Eve’s Diner, with an Apple as the logo? Really?
Direction and bad editing on the film aside, the acting is fantastic. Radcliffe owns the screen. He doesn’t chew scenery like Jeremy Irons does, but instead masters it. You want to watch him, even when he is being emo and moody. He just exudes something special and the movie is all the better for it. His emotional range is top notch, with a perfect accent. He commands pity, rage, and fear in equal measures and also has a certain sexiness to him as well. While I haven’t seen the Woman in Black, this does make me want to watch it.
The supporting cast is solid, but not nearly as interesting. You have Max Minghella (The Darkest Hour, Ides of March) as his best friend and Joe Anderson (Across the Universe, The Grey) as his older addiction laden brother. More famous faces such as James Remar (Django, Korra, and a lot of other things), Kathleen Quinlan (Hills have Eyes, Event Horizon), David Morse (Treme, Green Mile), and Heather Graham, who I think may be reincarnated Elizabeth Bathory as she does not look 44 in this movie, rounding out the cast. Of course, I also need to talk about Juno Temple (Maleficent, Killer Joe, Jack & Diane). She plays our deceased girl, through flashbacks of course, and has a presence all her own on screen. I don’t know that I felt her and Radcliffe had onscreen chemistry enough for me to buy the romance, but she does a rather good job through the film in conveying all her character goes through.
From a more technical standpoint the Horns look awesome. Not a surprise when Greg Nicotero and Howard Berger worked on them. The enhanced visual effects were not as clean, but anything that was practical – which was a lot – looked fantastic.
TL:DR?
But Jess ( I imagine you asking) should I see it?
Well to be honest, not really. It’s a good film, but not a great film. It had some entertaining beats, but was too slow for too long in others. The humor didn’t always work and because of that a lot of the movies entertainment value falls a bit flat. I don’t know if it needed another polish on the screenplay or a more experienced editor or…I don’t know what precisely would have fixed this movie, but it does need fixing.
If you are a Daniel Radcliffe fan or a fan of the book I think you should be safe to see and enjoy. I was entertained, but I really don’t think everyone will be.
Coming in blind, its a bit of a mess, but you *might* enjoy it. I can’t promise you will (or should) so I can’t say with all my usual confidence avoid it or watch it. It exists as a solid film in the indie realm with some serious starring power in Daniel Radcliffe. I think anyone else in the role the movie dies – and that is a problem.
Horns seems cursed by not knowing what it wants to be. Maybe Alighieri could come and give it a tour next time and it could have been a touch better.
Well, after some dental surgery I can’t talk but I can at least type. Good thing I don’t do podcasts or video reviews yet. I went to this half expecting to fall asleep from the medication or exhaustion and general apathy. I went into Interstellar thinking it has been overhyped to hell and back. So one thing I need to explain right at the start here, which is there are different kind of films. There are bad films, good films, indie films, art house films, tentpoles, and entertaining films. You may mix and match these to your hearts desire. For example The Room qualifies as Indie, Bad, and Art House. Big Hero 6 is both good and entertaining, while Starship Troopers is bad and entertaining. So where does Interstellar land on this weird venn diagram?
Well to be honest, Art House and Good. I normally wouldn’t start with that, but you may have noticed one of the optional traits missing. Let me explain.
The director is Christopher Nolan, of Batman and Inception fame, which I am on record as having no love for. I feel he is a bit too egotistical and wants to show just how “artsy” he can be at the sacrifice of good story, logic, or deformation of otherwise good characters. I honestly think he buys his own press about how “brilliant” a director he is and has gone beyond visionary into pretentious. I don’t feel that this movie is any different. It was hard not to watch the movie without imagining Christopher Nolan hopping around behind me going “see how visionary I am…you haven’t seen that before!” The problem is I have. So much of this movie I have seen before, not always better, but before. I saw Star Trek II, 2001, 2010, Alien, and Aliens. I saw Red Planet, Mission to Mars, Event Horizon, and oh did I mention 2001? Yes. I think Nolan looked at the great films of sci fi, the truly great masterworks and wanted to try his turn at the helm, and from that I can say he …is ok. But because of his style, and partially my bias, I don’t think thats a pass, just a neutral.
The story of course is by his brother Jonathan. Jonathan I think is overly influenced by his brother, but its hard to prove where the flaw is. Having written Memento, the Prestige, and The Dark Knight shows talent, but then Dark Knight Rises shows he doesn’t know how to get himself out of a corner and doesn’t logic it out. It shows that he doesn’t truly and fully understand the characters he is writing at all times. Obviously, he too was a fan of all those movies I referenced and for his part in combining them did well enough. There are sci fi elements I have not quite seen, but was able to predict, but most of the story beats themselves are pure paint by numbers.
Thankfully the actors in the film redeem most of the directorial and writing flubs. McConaughey isn’t my favourite actor, but I don’t hate him. He’s fairly solid here, but becomes too reserved for reasons I would welcome to someone to explain to me. Hathaway is remarkable in her role and I do buy her role as a scientist, which isn’t a slight on female scientists, but actresses playing BAD scientists. Remember Hollywood thought we should by Tara Reid as an archaeologist (Alone in the Dark) and Denise Richards as a Nuclear physicist. Hathaway comes across sound and intelligent and is fairly strong and inspiring. The most inspiring for me is Jessica Chastain. Her role as Murp(y’s Law) is strong, determined, and highly intelligent. She’s one of the brightest points to the film along with the actress that plays the young version of her Mackenzie Foy (The Conjuring, Twilight: Breaking Dawn). It was creepy how easy I could see one growing into the other, not like the garbage that was Looper with Joseph Gordon Levitt becoming Bruce Willis. The rest of the cast is filled with familiar faces doing unfamiliar things and are all turning out some of their better performances. Even the voices of the AI’s are good.
Now visually – the movie is stunning at times and repetitive at others. Their take on the black hole is breathtaking to the point I almost wish I had seen it in IMAX. Honestly, I can’t go too deep into discussing the visual artistry without speaking to scenes so need to stop there to avoid spoilers. The film is really well done from a technical perspective – until the end. Dear Selene above, the Return of the King had less endings and was less long winded! The music is good and used to the right effect to the point I am debating trying to get my hands on the score.
TL:DR
The movie is a beauty. It is cinematic, art inspired, and yes Good. But I don’t know that I can send anyone to the theatre expecting to be entertained. It is a strong movie, but not always entertaining. I did find myself sitting up once or twice, but overall it was just Good and OK.
Christopher Nolan’s pretentiousness is in high form and only mitigated by the actors and sometimes by the visuals.
So – if you are in the mood for a 3 hour long Sci Fi space opera? Sure go see this. Otherwise, sorry folks give this one a pass and go see Big Hero 6 this weekend or save your money for Hunger Games in two weeks.
This review is specifically for one of the people in my life that I can say I love and it is wonderful to say that and it not be weird for anyone involved. The cover art today is a sign she made for today’s beautiful annual event. If you haven’t figured it out by now, this is my favourite holiday ever. Growing up as a child with the previous day as my birthday meant cake and presents one day and costumes and candy the next. How can that possibly go wrong? A night where we as children are allowed to be out at night and to celebrate the night. A night where our imaginations and creativity are rewarded. A night where we can become the nightmare or heroes of our own stories to face them or embrace them. What in the name of all the old gods and goddesses is possibly wrong with this?
So when we talk nightmares, let us talk then about a video game that has caused nightmares in many. My ex said this was one of the scariest games she had ever played or watched someone play. So eventually someone was going to make it into a movie. Video Games to movies do not have a particularly stellar track record. Mortal Kombat is probably the least offensive of them, with Resident Evil a close second, and Tomb Raider vying for third place. Of course Uwe Boll got his hands on so many games it hurts on a primal level. This isn’t to say the movies that are made from video games aren’t sometimes entertaining, Doom is positively entertaining, Need for Speed was entertaining; but rather that they aren’t just that good. Frequently this is blamed on the source material being “just a game”, to which I say rubbish. Yes, first and second gen games had the thinnest backstory possible. Hell some third, fourth, and even recent gen games are pretty thin excuses for their own existence in the story department. Then we have games like Mass Effect, Dragon Age, even Assassins Creed (II mostly…I hate 3 and 4), and the recent Tomb Raider game. Games these days probably have more plot and story than films do (thank you Bioware and SquareEnix). Somewhere along the way though, and I am no video game expert by a long shot, Konami put a game out.
Konami the studio who gave us Contra, Frogger, and Dance Dance Revolution delivered unto us a horror franchise. I know little to nothing about the game, so will only judge it as a movie, but I am told it is relatively faithful to the setting material. When I spoke of atmosphere in the Fog movie review I spoke of how important it is. The makers of Silent Hill understood this. I know that the game is inspired by real life Centralia Pennsylvania, a place on Jessica’s short list for urban exploring, a town almost literally swallowed into hell by a mine fire that is expected to burn for years to come – thats where the similarities end.
And you thought the roads in your town were bad?
The movie focuses on the story of Rose Da Silva (Radha Mitchell) and her adopted daughter Sharon (Jodelle Ferland). Sharon has been having dreams of a place called Silent Hill, dreams of course being a light word for nightmares of extraordinary strength. Rose takes her daughter, without her husband (Sean Bean) Christopher’s consent. Whenever she mentions Silent Hill, people get weirded out, except curious officer Cybil (Laurie Holden), who chases the woman into Silent Hill. Driving faster than she can see proves a mistake and Rose wrecks her car at the entrance to the town. When she wakes her daughter is gone and she is in a grey scale landscape of ash and fog. Chasing a girl she thinks is her daughter through the streets of the seemingly deserted town she hears air raid sirens go off. Then the real nightmares begin.
Keeping with my normal rules of spoiler free, even though this one is past embargo range, I want people to enjoy this film. Enjoy the mystery of the truth of who and what brought Sharon to Silent Hill. The truth of what Silent Hill is and of course…the horror of what it is. Ok, one spoiler and a mystery all it’s own is …how did Sean Bean survive the film? This is Silent flippin Hill.
Lets talk about the writing for a moment, we have Roger Avary as the sole credit on the film. Avary has writing credits on True Romance, Reservoir Dogs, and Pulp Fiction, with an Oscar win for the last. He also has a BAFTA for it and a Saturn Award nomination for his work on the mo-cap Beowulf with Neil Gaiman. What I am saying here is the man knows how to write. He took whatever the game had and wove a rather complex intertwining story of past, present, and future within Silent Hill. I am not talking time travel, but just the levels that the film operates on simultaneously. The story nails it and does something few do, it makes me uncomfortable at times. It also makes me sympathize with the bad guy in this one, but I think you should. Even the way the story progresses makes it still feel like a video game but a logical extension for a running plot as well. When characters find items, use them, or add them to “inventory” it makes sense and feels natural. If you are a gamer, you see it for what it is and it’s hard not to smile at it.
Taking this script and making it a reality was the job of Christophe Gans. I love this man. I love his work. He doesn’t have much and I consider that a shame. Brotherhood of the Wolf was the first film of his I saw and was a beautiful piece of foreign film making. Five years after he was given this script; and just recently did a take on Beauty and the Beast (which I desperately want to see). We now return to our conversation about atmosphere and sweet ladies of the inferno does he create it. When it is light in the town of Silent Hill, there is the weight of fog and ash that surrounds everything. This place feels like it is on the edge of something dark already just from that alone. Then when it goes dark…you are made uncomfortable. It is wrong and you know it. This is Hellraiser territory at times and you can’t help but shift in your seat once or twice after those air raid sirens blare. The performances he elicits out of his actors are incredible, even if some of them reach campy at times, but the work with Mitchell and Ferland is excellent. Proof that yes, child actors work. Proof that a good director can turn great performances from children. His choices on camera work are also incredible as well, putting them in places and moving them in ways that truly inform the story and help push it and us along on this trip where I think even Dante would go “Pace!”
As for the actors, Radha Mitchell is our center of the story, a mother desperately trying to save her child mentally, physically, and spiritually. She is almost a typical last girl that we see in other films, except she begins strong and only gets stronger as the film progresses. The lengths the town (yes it’s a character all it’s own) drives her to are inhuman. The actress performs marvelously and I wish we got more of her in films. Sure we got her in Olympus has Fallen and Man on Fire, but we also saw her in the original Pitch Black – where she was also very fun to watch. Her…sidekick(?) for lack of a better word is Walking Dead’s Andrea Laurie Holden, so spoiler (rollover)you can watch her die horrifically here too? She is mostly a nick of time side kick of usefulness than anything else, but does fairly well here. Deborah Kara Unger (The Game, Payback), plays the mysterious Dahlia a figure who seems immune to the darkness for unknown reasons. Alice Krige (Star Trek: First Contact, Sorcerers Apprentice) plays the leader of the people of Silent Hill and I think may be channeling Piper Laurie from Carrie for the role. If the majority of the weight falls on Radha, then the remainder falls on Jodelle Ferland (Cabin in the Woods, Paranorman) for her minimal screen time. She handles Sharon well and has to do a lot with very little, but it works none the less.
Now, I talked about how Silent Hill itself is a character? Alright, I will say this first, the CGI here is kinda weak sometimes verging on SyFy weak. The practical though? Incredible. Production designer Carol Spier, who also gave us Pacific Rim and Carrie was a miracle worker. A black miracle perhaps, but miracle none the less. She took a Norman Rockwell town and in daylight it looks broken, in the grey ashfall it looks weighty and wrong, and in the dark is a special hell. The raw amount of practical choices here out weigh any horrific CG work for me. It is no surprise to me that I see Patrick Tatopoulos (Underworld, Stargate, Face Off, Solomon Kane) name on the Creature and Special Make up designer credit, specifically on the Nurses, and it – Pyramid Head. I had no experience with the game, but this thing was a monstrous force on screen that by careful choices of its creators carried real weight that made you know things were about to go terrifyingly wrong. Paul Jones appears to be the other creative lead, considering one of his first films were Waxwork, Hellraiser II, and Nightbreed I can see that he has specialties and they are only getting better. The town is a real thing here because of these people and their crews. It is a living, breathing, entity. It draws and drives the story forward on its own pace as much as any decision the characters make.
Before I get to the TL;DR on one of my longest reviews ever, I want to talk about the music. Pure atmosphere. In another film it could be lighter but when matched with the imagery here the word haunting comes to mind.
TL;DR
This would make my top 10 list of best horror movies. Many would disagree, but I distinctly remember walking from the theatre with my friend Kevin and looking at him going. “I feel…uncomfortable.”
I wasn’t scared, but I was disturbed. I think that counts for something special here. There is imagery, scenes, and shots in the movie that deliberately are crafted to be unpleasant and uncomfortable. It was just that kind of film where my skin was crawling a bit as I walked into a cool April evening. I cannot complain about a movie that I can so distinctly remember how it made me feel and the night as I left it.
I happily and eagerly recommend this film for October viewing, or viewing on a nice foggy night.
Should you watch Silent Hill? Absolutely, but keep the light switch handy.
PS Spoiler Rollover:
I agree with Alessa…and that which became Alessa. I understand her and was cheering for her. Rose’s decision would be mine.
I am ending the month of reviews with the film that I answer the question: “What’s your favourite movie of all time to?” when asked. No it’s not what I put for security questions that ask the same. I am insane, not stupid. I have seen this twice on the big screen by pure luck and enjoy it every time. I avoid the colourized version when possible and suffer through it when not. It’s important to note, when looking at the genre of Sci-Fi this is one of forerunners of the modern alien movies. Coming out in 1951 it was part of the rise of cultural xenophobia and anti russian sentiment growing in the US during the post war environment. We were already at war in Korea during this and the Russians were the boogeymen. The boogeyman can’t be a man though, not really, not then anyway, it had to be something else, something Alien perhaps?
The Day the Earth Stood Still had not come out yet that year, and the genre of science fiction has been around on screen for as long as we’ve had screens. It’s been on the air since well we had airwaves to transmit for entertainment. Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, a little thing called War of the Worlds? Novels of such things have existed even longer with a mother of science fiction in Mary Shelley, and those who followed such as H.G. Wells and Jules Verne. The 30’s saw a rise in pulp fiction, with such literary greats as Robert E Howard and H.P. Lovecraft; or even a certain man (he might even be called super) created by Siegel and Shuster. Yet, with all of this background the idea of alien films was still very new and this is among the earliest and due to two factors more overlooked. The first factor is the Robert Wise production of The Day the Earth Stood Still, one of the top films of the same year. It would be like me asking you what other Sci Fi movie came out the same year as Independence Day, you probably can’t, and that’s ok. Some films are just so big they overshadow the rest.
The second factor leaving this one overlooked and underrated is John Carpenter. In 1982 he released his take on the same story. Both films are based on a story called “Who Goes There?” by John W. Campbell. While, per usual, I haven’t read the original story the Carpenter version is attributed to being more accurate to the xenophobic fear that the story espouses. Carpenters version is also widely praised by cinephiles and fans of both sci fi and horror. It’s practical effects are still a benchmark. With all of this in mind, I do prefer this film.
Let’s talk about the film in the usual way shall we?
The credited director is Christian Nyby, with this as his first film. He then moved to TV and never quite looked back with dozens of TV shows to his credit through 1975. IMDB indicates there is an uncredited director – Howard Hawks, who was also the producer. Hawks worked on some of the greatest war movies and most memorable westerns of all time, with Sergeant York (a joke in the movie I realize now), Air Force, Rio Bravo, and El Dorado; he was even the director on the Marilyn Monroe classic Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953). So the sharp direction, wit, and conversations through the movie. For 1951 it has excellent blocking and timing with the understanding that editing was more difficult back then.
The script was written by Charles Lederer, who had been writing for two decades prior, and worked with Hawks on several films after. Probably one of the most famous films he worked on was the original Ocean’s Eleven and Mutiny on the Bounty. I think it was this man that probably inspired most of what I like about the film, the dialogue. While analyzing it as an adaptation of the source material it is a fail, for a standalone story it works. It captures the paranoia growing through the country well enough and again is one of the forerunners of alien invasion movies. It also brilliantly doesn’t demonize anyone as so many of the movies in Sci Fi from the 50s and 60’s do. There is a strong anti science sentiment, mostly due to the realization of the nuclear bombs power and that science delivered it, contrasted by scientists still saving us. It’s an interesting mix in film at the time with very strong fear of the nuclear age and those who delivered it to us. This movie lets science show it’s curiosity as much as it’s caution with several of the scientists arguing amongst themselves as to how to proceed, and I admire that. Along with this, we get a strong female who has a sexual identity of her own that helps drive the backstory/lovestory between her and the main protagonist. It’s not forced, in fact it feels very real and natural as written. The rest of the dialogue through the film almost reminds me of Aaron Sorkin on the West Wing, it is witty, quick, and relies on strong chemistry with the cast.
I wish I could say more about the cast beyond that strong chemistry. Everyone in the film is fantastic, don’t get me wrong. Kenneth Toney (Capt. Hendry), Margaret Sheridan (Nikki), Robert Cornthwaite (Dr. Arthur Carrington), and Dewey Martin (Bob..seriously); all of them were great. They played their parts well, felt like a real crew who knew each other and it was warm despite the climate. The relationship between Hendry and Nikki was absolutely believable and honestly a bit racy for the 50s; especially where he lets her tie him up for a date. Carrington’s obsession with science is portrayed as reasonable at first and grows less so, but at the same time you cannot help but appreciate his arguments – Cornthwaite is responsible for that. Bob is every sergeant story I have ever heard since. He knows all, sees all, and a good captain and officers wisely listen. They do. They even joke about it. It works.
There is of course, James Arness, who is our visitor. His name, unlike the others who vanished in to relative obscurity even with long careers, is known as Matt Dillon in Gunsmoke. They used his 6’7″ (2.01 meter) frame to full advantage which made him an imposing monster on screen.
I can’t say much about the technical aspects, it’s 1951. What they do – works rather well.
TL;DR
This is one of the great sci fi movies of all time and it doesn’t get nearly enough love. If you want to check it out, I highly recommend it.
. While, per usual, I haven’t read the original story the Carpenter version is attributed to being more accurate to the xenophobic fear that the story espouses. Carpenters version is also widely praised by cinephiles and fans of both sci fi and horror. It’s practical effects are still a benchmark. With all of this in mind, I do prefer this film.
Amused in the Dark 