Yes, you CAN call a movie NIGHTCRAWLER without it being either a horror film or an X-MEN spinoff.
Jake Gyllenhaal is Louis Bloom, introduced as an unemployed thief who’s always looking to improve his situation and stands ready with a litany of self-promoting come-on pitches he learned through obsessive Internet study. Of course, since Lou has no genuine interest in human interaction, his loquacious auto-pilot performances have no effect on his target audience (the fact that he’s a thief also tends to work against him). People are only interested in listening to Lou when he actually HAS something that they want… and once he gains that advantage, he holds on to it relentlessly and remorselessly. As you probably already know from the trailers, fate leads Lou to the potentially lucrative world of crime-scene video commerce…
NIGHTCRAWLER makes no pretense of offering us a character forced to question his morals as his newly profitable enterprise inspires deeper and deeper levels of line-crossing and (soon enough) out-and-out lawbreaking. Lou was NEVER a good guy–he’s an unapologetic misanthrope whose contemptuous smirk almost never leaves his face (he loses composure exactly once and only because someone else beat him to the jackpot). The late Roger Ebert may well have opined that since the movie gives us such an unlikable protagonist, we couldn’t possibly care what happens to him. But that doesn’t mean you won’t want to see what happens next in every situation. Gyllenhaal is quite simply riveting throughout, and we watch with appalled fascination as he deals variously with the TV news director (Rene Russo) who potentially holds the keys to Lou’s dream kingdom; the homeless “production assistant” (Rick Garcia) he snags off the streets; and Bill Paxton as a far more experienced “nightcrawler” who has all the technical advantages that Lou himself lacks. (The TV exec who keeps shouting “This is wrong! This is wrong!” into the wind is ignored without consequence by pretty much everybody else, if you’re looking for that one spoken nod to human morality–the movie itself screams that message with or without him.)
As a result, the climactic suspense sequence (as Lou arranges his biggest “coup” yet–you’ll notice that I’ve gone out of my way to tell you as little about the actual plot as possible) is every bit as excruciating as it would be if you actually feared for Lou’s life.
For once, the frantic critical blurbs are quite accurate–NIGHTCRAWLER does, indeed, rank as one of the year’s standout films. It was a pity to see it take a back seat to the second week of OUIJA when it opened, but what do you expect on Halloween weekend? And now INTERSTELLAR’s going to push EVERYTHING out of its path.
Do yourself a favor and see this one before it crawls away…
Director Scott Derrickson arrived on the scene with the compromised HELLRAISER: INFERNO, which needed Pinhead about as much as it needed a… er… pin in the head. The actual film was one of the very few pseudo-HELLRAISER sequels to prove actually worth watching on its own and established Derrickson as a specialist in “true crime” flavored horror.
His theatrical debut, THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE, was heavily criticized by those familiar with the actual details of the true-life case that inspired it–some went so far as to brand it a travesty. Point taken, so be it. As a fictionalized motion picture (which, of course, is exactly what it was), it was a powerful horror/courtroom thriller which treated both sides of the supernatural debate with equal weight.
And SINISTER sealed the deal as Ethan Hawke attempted to prove that the supernatural, of course, had nothing to do with the ghastly crimes he was eager to exploit in a book…
Now comes DELIVER US FROM EVIL, which first made itself known with a much-too-familiar title and a teaser trailer that made it look like the latest variant on PARANORMAL ACTIVITY (though, of course, “inspired by a true story”)–in fact, it was only the name “Scott Derrickson” that made me want to see it at first.
Well, P.A. it ain’t, and it’s not a “found footage” movie in the slightest, either. What the trailer did NOT tell you is that this “true story” (from the memoirs of NYPD officer Ralph Sarchie) is, on the surface, merely the latest re-take on that granddaddy known as THE EXORCIST, starting as it does with the uncovering of an evil force in Iraq and climaxing as it does with… an exorcism. However, DELIVER US FROM EVIL does NOT tell us the same story in between…
Ralph Sarchie (Eric Bana) has been enduring the worst of what humanity has to offer in his Bronx graveyard shift; but he presses on, getting what little enjoyment he can out of his banter with his partner Butler (Joel McHale), putting “the job” ahead of his wife and young daughter (Olivia Munn and Lulu Wilson), and employing his mysterious “radar” to direct him to the calls he knows he has to handle personally.
As our story opens, Sarchie encounters a string of violent acts which involve such linking elements as the frantic scratching of the floor, mysterious losses of power (including holy candlelight) and nastiness involving animals and children alike. The narrative quickly takes us to a terrific set piece in the Bronx Zoo, with only emergency lighting and night-vision goggles available to they officers when they try to track down a dangerous suspect…
…but let’s dispense with the details as much as possible. On paper, they’re either going to lead to spoilers or they’re simply going to sound much too familiar and do the film a disservice. Yes, Sarchie is a lapsed Catholic. And of course a Jesuit priest (Edgar Ramirez as Father Mendoza) is going to persist in dragging Sarchie’s latent faith to the surface even as the evil he’s uncovered threatens to reach out to Sarchie and his unwitting family. But the characters (never mind how true they are to either “real life” or Sarchie’s book–we are watching a MOVIE no matter what they tell us) remain engaging and share good chemistry throughout the film (“I’m N.A., not A.A.!”); the standard manifestations of possession are very cleverly blended with a generous sampling of songs by The Doors (not to mention the old classic “Pop Goes The Weasel”) in one of the best touches; and Derrickson maintains his knack for setting up disturbing, violent and frightening scenes and imagery without ever letting the pace slacken (remarkable for a film of this length in this day and age). So by the time we actually GET to the teaser scene with the ridiculously creepy stuffed owl… well, it’s pretty damn scary at that!
Who needs yet another exorcism movie? Well, substitute any horror trope you like for the word “exorcism” in that question. We keep coming back to this material because there’s a rich AND current history behind it, and because it works. DELIVER US FROM EVIL is a solid, effective shocker no matter what you think of from whence it sprang.
Oh, and opening it on the Fourth of July weekend was pretty much its death knell, so you’d better hurry. But really… REALLY? More people wanted to see TAMMY? Well… maybe it IS scarier… but I’ll never know.
I hadn’t even heard of this film two weeks ago and then all of a sudden it was the rage… the first English-language film of Korean director Park Hoon-Jung (THE HOST, which had some great stuff but which was ultimately over-rated in my book; and MOTHER, which I still haven’t seen) is now here, and while fans are up in arms about the “limited release,” at least they’re getting the full-length version.
So much to process… so what is SNOWPIERCER? It’s a blockbuster-budgeted adaptation of a French graphic novel, for a start. In the not-too-distant, our efforts to curb global warming have resulted in an apocalyptic ice age, and the remnants of humanity have been collected in a massive “supertrain” prophetically designed by a certain forward-thinking scientist by the name of Wilford. As long as the perpetually-powered train keeps circling the globe, those safely inside can survive–to venture outside is near-instantaneous freezing death. Ah, but the powers that be who run the train have ensured that human society will continue as it always has… with the elite enjoying the “good life” in the front section and the common rabble sweating it out in the windowless tail, existing on nauseating “protein bars” and occasionally (and, of course, unwillingly) giving up certain of their number (including young children) to those up front–for whatever reason…
We’re about sixteen years into this situation as the movie kicks off, which means that thirty-something Curtis (Chris Evans) has spent half of his life on the train and barely remembers Earth as it was. He’s slowly and methodically planning a revolution (it wouldn’t be the first one) which will lead “his” people to take over the front of the train by force, but he doesn’t consider himself a “leader” as such… it takes the gentle coaxing of a crippled, elderly former scientist named Gilliam (John Hurt) to groom him for a position he really wants to avoid. Words eventually translate into carefully planned action, and once Curtis secures the services of security engineer Namgoong Minsoo (Kang-ho Song), and his teenage daughter (Ah-sung Ko) he looks to gain access to each and every car in sequence. All that’s asked of him in return is a generous supply of a powerful hallucinogenic forged from industrial waste… but of course the price turns out to be a lot higher…
Conceptually and politically, we’ve seen many treatments of this theme ranging all the way back to METROPOLIS and, most recently, the HUNGER GAMES franchise; the grubby solidarity of the working class and the debauchery of the higher-ups may not be enough in itself to draw a direct line to the latter, but then Tilda Swinton steps in as Marshall Mason… this gaudy/ghastly/genial figurehead may well be cut from the same cloth as Effie Trinkett, but Swinton has no problem whatsoever making Mason her own unforgettable creation in a truly no-holds-barred performance, whether she’s overseeing a remarkably cruel (and symbolic) punishment for subversion or finding herself reluctantly along for the ride…
Mason is, of course, just one of many powerful characters to turn up in the epic narrative, and the HUNGER GAMES, etc. comparisons take a back seat to the unique structure of SNOWPIERCER–the enormously appealing gimmick here is that each open gate leads to a new wonder, a new horror or a new danger; at one moment you may be marveling at a preserved microcosm of the ocean itself; at another you may find yourself with guards armed to the teeth with various sharp implements; or you may find yourself back in grade school (in one of the best scenes, during which I acknowledge that I failed to recognize Alison Pill as the teacher thanks to her platinum-blonde wig). The violence isn’t nearly as off the charts as, for example, a RAID movie, but it’s quite hard-hitting all the same, and the style ranges from brutal hand-to-hand combat in a luxury spa car to a uniquely-staged long-distance gun duel…
There is just SO much going on to hold your attention, but any of it can stop as abruptly as it starts (Happy New Year!) because SOME business just can’t wait… in short, it’s a wild ride indeed, and there’s no excuse to pass it up on the big screen should you be afforded the opportunity… that said, I have to be honest and report my one disappointment. Much as the majority of critics agreed at the time that APOCALYPSE NOW was great until you actually got to Marlon Brando? That’s approximately how I felt about SNOWPIERCER when we actually get to Ed Harris (which is not a reflection on the actor or his performance in any way). By this point in the narrative (especially as it has NOT been cut by 20m as was apparently threatened), we’ve quite been made to understand the point of just what’s going on and why it’s been set up that way, and here we’re subjected to a few too many melancholy reiterations of what we’ve already been told–and even though the action is still raging on in the background, the symbolism starts to get just a bit (dare I say it?) heavy-handed.
That’s not nearly enough to tone down my recommendation, however. This one’s got all the action and excellent special effects you could ask for… but unlike many a brainless “epic,” it keeps giving you MORE.
When the last frame of Jonathan Glazer`s latest film- Under the Skin finished, I was struck by two things. The first, was how spellbinding the picture was, in every sense of the phrase. I felt as though, I was slowly disengaging from an experience which had shocked me to the core.
This was to such an extent, that my eyes had to adjust to the house lights, and I had to slowly succumb to reality again. The second, which had dawned upon me soon after, was a quote from Roger Ebert, which goes as follows: “If a movie is really working, you forget for two hours your Social Security number and where your car is parked. You are having a vicarious experience.”
Under the Skin is one of the purest examples of what cinema does best. For a couple of hours, it allows you to see the world through a unique point of view, and almost live out that experience. While staunch traditionalists and some audiences members will complain that the film does not have a narrative flow. I would contend that the film has many interesting layers, that one can interpret, put together and ultimately form a cohesive experience.
One of these layers is the whole framework of the film, in an interview with Adam Kempenaar (of Filmspotting fame) The director, Jonathan Glazer, said that, what had interested him most about the original novel by Michael Faber, was the point of view of the alien character. To this end, the film is about her small time on Earth. This is in addition to some other themes, in the picture.
One such theme is about image, not only from the vantage point of how Scarlett`s character presents herself to the world, but also how Glazer presents the actress to us, by playing with her usual image. These two ideas work greatly in unison, the first showcasing the alien with a careful balance of female and male traits.
The former being presented in what she wears, as we see Johansen`s character go shopping, picking a dark brown fluffy coat and lipsticks. The latter is shown in the vehicle, the alien chooses to drive. This is a massive truck and her behaviour is very predatory, methods of which, that are usually ascribed to males.
Despite how much we see of Scarlett Johansson’s character, including a scene where she is looking at her naked body in a mirror, while a prism of light shines through her. I feel as though Glazer ultimately shows that objectification is an empty hollow thing, using Johansson as a sketch. Some of her roles in the past, have had the audience perceive her this way.
Despite quite a bit of nudity, it proves to be, not very tantalising at all. This is through some of the role reversal as well as how Glazer shoots Johansson. One remarkable example being when he focuses on a close up of her face, which then cuts to her eyes and we see nothing, no spark or life behind them.
There is also a theme of voyeurism, that permeates throughout the picture. On the one hand, we are watching the alien`s point of view. In addition to this, we are seeing the world from her perspective, which ultimately shows us a view of ourselves. This is best showcased in a montage of sorts, where we see images, scenes of random people going about their everyday lives.
This ends with the alien`s face, coming into frame, appearing slightly out of focus, and settling in the middle of the frame. This almost gives the impression that we are perceiving her memories and recollections. Ultimately the interplay of these two ideas, is perfectly encapsulated in this one scene.
Jonathan Glazer, elsewhere in his direction, seamlessly creates the most atmospheric film of the year, which greatly blurs the line between reality and dreaming. His use of non actors in the majority of the picture, give the film this great tactile feel that complements the mood and style. His trademark, as with his previous film Birth, is in crafting these great, finely composed shots. They linger, almost in a Kubrickian way, it gives the viewer the feeling that the camera, is quite infinite in its scope.
The lightning was very impressive too, there are a lot of black on black scenes. However you could almost swear that you are perceiving a veil of red in an almost subliminal way, in these moments. His work was most seductive in the first half of the picture, which incorporated lighting from the natural environments.
This is shown in the scene where Scarlet`s character is asking for directions and we see her half of her face covered in amber, reflected from a nearby traffic light. What is even more impressive, is a similar scene we get later on. The key difference is that the sun shines in the shot, giving this very natural quality and one of the film’s few warm moments.
Finally, Glazer directs the picture in a unique way, that makes the film not seem like a science fiction movie. This comes from the aforementioned style. It also comes from showing such drab environments where you can really feel the dirt, bleakness and coldness of those areas.
In fact, the last scene where we see Scarlett`s alien visage, despite its passing resemblance to the female terminator model in Terminator 3. It looked more like a cyber infused version of an Edmund Munch painting, as opposed to the usual Hollywood alien reveal.
The picture, is greatly helped by the score, which was provided by Mica Levi. In its use throughout the film, it gives of the impression that we are in the landscape of the alien`s mind. The sound scape being a mixture between quite mechanical, dizzying and primal. The primal aspect is emphasised with a great use of drums, that have this deep, subconscious effect on the viewer, during the seduction scenes.
Scarlett Johansson anchors the entire film, with her performance. One of the most fascinating parts of it, was how multi-faceted it was. On one level we see her as the happy, go lucky woman with a British accent. She is polite, fun and caring, in these scenes, when she is with men. However outside those early scenes, she seems so cold and calculated, in her precision and purpose.
Seeing these two elements come together in the seduction scenes is very intriguing. This is because, Johansson is playing with both levels of these established façades, while simultaneously putting on an erotic front.
Johansson also adds other elements to her performance, which are best illustrated in the second half of the picture. She plays up her curiosity, about her own image and displays a great deal of vulnerability. Johansson`s portrait of a being, who is isolated in a strange place and comes to learn, what it means to be human, is one of the best performances of the year, and perhaps the actress`s personal best.
Despite the short amount of time, that has elapsed in my viewing of the film, I can already tell that, it is going to stay with me. The thirst of wanting to see it again, is close to, the feeling of wishing to experience a peculiar dream again, with all its enigmas and peculiarities intact.
I recently happened across a review of PRISONERS by David Denby in the New Yorker… it’s not surprising that the review was positive, but I was personally irked by a gratuitous parenthetical crack he made near the end. It read: “Horror-film fans will not like this picture; some of it is actually horrifying.”
Well, Denby may well know his movies, but he obviously doesn’t know much (if anything) about horror fans; invoking the stereotype that says all they care about is “fun” gore and splatter as he does. I would suggest that horror fans are more than capable of telling the difference between PRISONERS and SAW and HOSTEL. For that matter, they know the difference between SAW and HOSTEL themselves; and the more experienced of their number might also wish to invoke an obscurity from 1972 known variously as REVENGE, TERROR FROM UNDER THE HOUSE and INN OF THE FRIGHTENED PEOPLE, in which James Booth, Joan Collins, et al abduct the man they hold responsible for their daughter’s murder after the police let him go. The premise is almost identical to that of PRISONERS, but Denis Villenueve’s new film is completely its own animal, fear not. Better yet, prepare to fear.
Two families in Pennsylvania (Hugh Jackman, Maria Bello and children as the Dovers; Terrence Howard, Viola Davis and children as the Birches) are enjoying a Thanksgiving get-together when the youngest daughter of each family simultaneously vanishes. The strangely-named Detective Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal) almost immediately apprehends the all-too-obvious prime suspect; a mentally challenged young man named Alex (Paul Dano). But with absolutely no physical evidence to be found, the police have no choice but to release Alex, much to the rage and frustration of father Keller Dover, who happens to be a professional building contractor with access to abandoned property; and to whom Alex made it quite clear that he knows more than he’s willing to say out loud…
We all know where this is going, but PRISONERS continues to surprise and, yes, horrify, throughout. There’s hideous brutality dished out to a victim who may well be completely innocent; family members who would have wanted nothing to do with such activities are brought in against their will, and what chance at salvation does the apparently devoutly religious Keller have no matter how things turn out? He’s not going to get away with anything, and he knows it, even as he refuses to believe that Loki is actually doing anything about the situation. Loki, of course, is actually working overtime to solve the case, but he, too, may be hindered by his own rage and frustration (he also feels extra pressure because he was introduced as the detective who’s solved EVERY case he’s ever been assigned).
I was about to agree with Denby insofar as admitting that PRISONERS was certainly not a traditional “horror” film, but some truly unexpected shocks, the palpable dread that builds with each new discovery that has to be looked at (a collection of locked bins makes the audience gasp in horror before a single one is even opened) and plenty of aberrant psychology make this a legitimate nail-biter in addition to being an emotionally wrenching human drama. I could cross-check several other excellent shockers to which PRISONERS pays homage, but that might inadvertently lead to spoiler territory.
Oh, and the ending? Sheer perfection. PRISONERS is a completely satisfying thriller on all levels, and yes, horror fans, you’re going to appreciate it no matter what they say in New York.
Okay, let’s get this one over with. I saw DARK SKIES because I’ve been skipping (or plan to skip) quite a few tenuously-connected genre outings lately. No interest in HANSEL & GRETEL. No interest in WARM BODIES. Or BEAUTIFUL CREATURES. Or JACK THE GIANT SLAYER (okay, Sam Raimi’s trip to OZ does look promising). Or Stephanie Myers’ take on INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS that uses the title of a Korean monster movie. So at least DARK SKIES wasn’t some R-rated fairy tale or yet another “young adult” romance with supernatural characters… it was actually going to be about nasty aliens terrorizing a family and it was actually going to try to scare me. So I gave it a fair chance.
Keri Russell and Josh Hamilton live in suburban California with two young sons. The thirteen-year-old has been led off the straight and narrow by an older friend who continually treats him to porn and pot (this leads to a most uncomfortable bit of teenage groping later on), and the younger brother is pretty much willing to believe whatever anyone else tells him.
Weird things then start to happen at home. Someone or something raids the refrigerator but eats only the lettuce. Then the whatsit arranges everything in the kitchen into an awesomely-balanced work of art to scare Mom. Yeah, there’s some SIGNS stuff about the symbols being created, but it really happens because it’s sort of like what the ghosts did in POLTERGEIST.
Funny… I had a dream about POLTERGEIST last night and I wasn’t even anticipating seeing DARK SKIES. Actually, the dream involved me seeing an ad for the remake of POLTERGEIST II even though there hadn’t been a remake of the original (yet).
Anyhow, DARK SKIES continues down the same path as the various family members take turn blacking out, acting strangely and seeing “The Sandman” (your typical ‘gray’ with no imaginative/original touches whatsoever). But unlike the happy POLTERGEIST campers, this family is living in the modern day with all its inherent troubles and stresses, so everybody thinks the behavior of the children is a direct result of the bickering of the parents.
Then they broke out the home security cameras to set up some PARANORMAL ACTIVITY jazz, and I considered walking out. Then the aliens started marking the boys, so everybody on the block thought that Dad was beating them (and Dad obligingly enabled this misunderstanding by doing something mind-blowingly stupid), so I DID walk out.
Okay, I didn’t REALLY walk out. But I zoned out, occasionally acknowledging that something or other was occasionally happening on screen. No Zelda Rubinstein, though… this time the parents visit a ‘gray’ expert in a cat-crowded apartment and he spells the whole near-hopeless situation out for them. He also calls attention to the implants they’ve received without their knowledge. You know, like the ones in THEY quite a while ago?
There’s no “They’re heeeeree….,” but there IS a staticky TV screen. There’s also a decent startle or two to be had, but the best one was given away in the trailer. And there’s a climax/ending that’s frustratingly broken up with material that’s openly, obviously a dream, but it kind of sort of might have worked if the past hour and fifteen minutes hadn’t drained all the life out of me with soul-sucking boredom ahead of time.
I suppose I’ll see the amusingly-titled THE LAST EXORCISM PART 2 next week just to see if there’s any lingering trace of what I liked so much about the first one. But it looks like just another exorcism movie too soon after THE POSSESSION.
Then I think I just might hang it up for a while. Let me know if anything interesting happens again.
How many hundreds of commercials have you seen for prescription medicines in which a gentle voice runs through a gigantic list of side effects that sound worse than the condition itself? I’d imagine Steven Soderbergh has seen more than his share, as he chose this thriller penned by Scott Z. Burns as his alleged farewell to the big screen (good grief, the man’s only two years older than me).
This review will be necessarily short and sweet. Rooney Mara is Emily Taylor, whose dream life was turned upside down at the moment of her wedding to Martin (Channing Tatum) thanks to his arrest for insider trading. And even though she’s waited patiently for his release for four years, and even though Martin promises to make things right again, Emily soon deliberately drives her car into a brick wall. She awakens under the care of psychiatrist Jude Law… and his treatment, unsurprisingly, involves a prescription.
I will say no more about the story. What I will tell you is that the ads promise you a thriller, and the movie lives up to the promise. I will also tell you that twenty years from now, people will be talking about Rooney Mara’s role in the NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET remake much as they talk about the screen origins of Kevin Bacon and Johnny Depp today–she’s that good. And so’s Jude Law. And… naahh, I’m not going to highlight any more characters for you.
An irresistible William Castle-like premise, strong and shocking violence and a fine cast guaranteed that this thriller would get plenty of attention come opening weekend.
In case you missed the trailer, Halle Berry stars as Jordan Turner, a highly-respected and efficient 911 operator in Los Angeles. However, her handling of a “home invasion” call from a terrified 14-year-old girl inadvertently leads to devastating consequences, and a guilt-wracked Jordan abandons the switchboard for six months. Circumstances, of course, draw her back when the same culprit (Michael Eklund) strikes again: this time he’s kidnapped Abigail Breslin (yes, LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE herself) but he doesn’t know that she’s in communication with Jordan on a conveniently untraceable cell phone.
This is exactly the sort of film that Dark Castle should be making; but wrestling fans are undoubtedly aware that it’s a co-production of WWE Studios, which learned its lesson from 12 ROUNDS and is no longer attempting to create theatrical star vehicles for its own wrestlers (DTV will do quite nicely for such projects): for the record, David Otunga makes a credible appearance in the undemanding role of the police partner of Morris Chestnut, Jordan’s close friend who spearheads the field investigation. The change of formula worked: this time WWE has a legitimate hit on its hands.
And make no mistake: THE CALL is every bit as nerve-wracking as it promises to be under the direction of Brad Anderson (SESSION 9), who brings both a SPEED sensibility to the real-time danger and jolts the viewer even when one has to know what’s coming next. Eklund is a convincingly mad and extremely dangerous psychopath, and sympathy for the simultaneous plights of Berry and Breslin comes effortlessly (one cringes at the abuse dished out to the latter, especially as the movie very carefully avoids showing you exactly what Eklund did to his first victim, but the young actress gets to do more than simply be terrified). Michael Imperioli of THE SOPRANOS also makes a welcome appearance as a Good Samaritan…
But then comes a moment where the tension breaks and the tone shifts: without giving too much away, I will simply say that we reach a point where we get to see things that Berry’s character can’t even hear about on the phone… and, well… THE CALL becomes a different movie. The type in which you’d expect Jodie Foster to show up. Of course, now I no longer have to hedge my bets when it comes to identifying this as a “horror movie.” Thankfully, Anderson keeps things compelling (if far less original) and makes you want to keep watching the story through to its conclusion; but while the very end of the film might work (and has worked) in other movies, it still seems inappropriate in THIS one (and that has nothing to do with my personal feelings as to who “deserves” what in such a scenario).
Still, despite my misgivings regarding the mechanics employed in reaching a resolution here, THE CALL still ranks as a most worthwhile and skillful thriller and comes with a strong recommendation.
I’d imagine that any film headlining Jennifer Lawrence of THE HUNGER GAMES would be great for opening box office, but the ads I saw for HOUSE AT THE END OF THE STREET (no “The”) led me to pretty much assume that the actual film would be as underwhelming as the last two “House” films I saw (DREAM HOUSE and SILENT HOUSE, if you’re counting).
I like being wrong.
Lawrence is Elissa, the seventeen-year-old daughter of Sarah (Elisabeth Shue). Sarah has recently divorced her no-good absentee husband, but she herself has scarcely been much of a mother to Elissa. Nevertheless, Elissa finds herself uprooted from Chicago (and her band) as her mother attempts to give her a “fresh start” in a remote, forested neighborhood. Sarah can rent the property quite easily, because it happens to be within walking distance of a “murder house” that’s driving property values down to the consternation of almost the entire town.
They can’t raze the place because young Ryan (Max Thieriot) still inhabits it against all odds… everybody knows that his little sister Carrie-Anne murdered her parents in his absence and became an urban legend (“the body was never found…”) in the process. But Ryan hangs around all the same, working on restoring the family house and nursing guilt about the childhood accident that damaged his sister in the first place…
Ryan, of course, is the community recluse and pariah, but wouldn’t you know it–fate (and the fact that the nice, scholarly young man that the neighbors would LOVE Elissa to hang out with is actually a scumbag) soon places Elissa in Ryan’s car, and she gets to know him better… much to the consternation of her mother.
Oh, it’s a horror film all right, but one that plays fairly, one in which all of the characters behave believably and logically (including Gil Bellows as the local law enforcement), one that contains plenty of well-timed jumps, and one with surprises (including a game-changer of a twist that I never would have anticipated). For once, the ads got it just right without blowing the deal.
Screenwriter David Loucka gets far more mileage out of this story (from BREAKDOWN/TERMINATOR 3 creator Jonathan Mostow) than he did with the painfully transparent DREAM HOUSE, and director Mark Tonderai more than proves himself with his theatrical debut. In all, HOUSE AT THE END OF THE STREET is one of the year’s best surprises.
A prologue reminds us that Edgar Allan Poe died under mysterious circumstances, setting us up not for a remake of any other film called THE RAVEN but a fanciful speculation of what might have happened. So no spoilers there.
As you may have surmised from the TV spots, somebody in Baltimore has started a wave of “copycat” killings inspired by Poe’s works. Hey, THEATER OF BLOOD remains one of my favorite films and I like John Cusack, so THE RAVEN started with the right ingredients in my book… let’s see what develops.
The question as far as the police are concerned is whether or not Poe himself is involved in the murders. They tend to doubt it, but they need his insight all the same… especially when Poe’s secret fiancee (Alice Eve) is abducted in the midst of a MASQUE OF THE RED DEATH-inspired fiasco. Poe then receives a mysterious audiocassette which begins ominously: “Hello, Edgar. I want to play a game.”
Oh, sorry… audiocassettes weren’t actually invented back then. It was just a plain old note. But you get the idea.
I won’t spell it out, but you’re likely to guess the villain’s identity before anybody on screen does. And since we’re NOT dealing with an independently wealthy engineering genius, nobody even THINKS to ask just how in the blue hell our antagonist managed to obtain, assemble and deploy an elaborate PIT AND THE PENDULUM deathtrap without anybody catching on.
Mystery? Predictable. Outcome? Inevitable (see prologue). Gore? CGI.
Cusack? As I said, I tend to like him in just about anything, but he doesn’t channel the tortured genius of Edgar Allan Poe as I see it. He seems far too healthy and upbeat, even when he’s self-righteously bemoaning his lot in life to bartenders and editors alike. And one barely bats an eye even when he feeds a human heart to his pet raccoon (yes, you read that correctly). The “torment” thing kicks in eventually, but by then it was far too late for the movie to connect with me in any significant way…
…because, worst of all, it was the one thing it shouldn’t have been. Boring.
Make that boring AND visually obnoxious–though this did NOT come out in converted 3-D, it was obvious that plans were made in that department, as computerized bullets, blood splatters, etc. keep trying to pop directly into our faces (and don’t get me started on the awful end title sequence).
