Showing posts with label d'onofrio. Show all posts
Showing posts with label d'onofrio. Show all posts

Friday, 11 February 2022

The Eyes Of Tammy Faye (2022) - Movie Review

After two far-from ideal releases from Jessica Chastain’s Freckle Films in the form of Ava and The 355, I damn-near used every last hope reserve I had left and aimed it directly at this film because I want something good to come out of Chastain as a name-brand producer. And truth be told, she seems to have finally found a production worth having her name on it, both as producer and as title star. Having been somewhat familiar with her work since seeing her in Zero Dark Thirty all those years ago, I’ve always thought of her as a good actor but never one that had a central mind-blowing performance to her credit. Until now, that is.

Friday, 24 December 2021

The Unforgivable (2021) - Movie Review


After how well the remake of The Guilty turned out, I was more than willing to give this film a chance. An American remake of a British TV miniseries, starring Sandra Bullock in a consciously-against-type role of a woman who has just been released from a 20-year stint in prison for murder. It certainly caught my attention just from that setup, and I can already see all manner of possibilities for thoughtful translation between cultures. But unfortunately, just about every major decision here feels backwards.

Tuesday, 13 March 2018

Death Wish (2018) - Movie Review

 
The plot: Surgeon Paul Kersey (Bruce Willis) has his comfortable life turned upside-down after a home invasion leaves his wife (Elizabeth Shue) dead and his daughter (Camila Morrone) in a coma. With the police being ineffectual in finding the criminals responsible for the break-in, and Paul knowing that crime is a consistent problem in his neighbourhood, he decides to take the law into his hands and hunt them down himself.

Tuesday, 26 December 2017

El Camino Christmas (2017) - Movie Review


www.thegaia.org
The plot: Eric (Luke Grimes) has arrived to El Camino, Arizona, in search of his lost father. However, he soon finds himself in a bizarre hostage situation when he, local policeman Carl Hooker (Vincent D’Onofrio), mother Kate (Michelle Mylett) and her son, and town drunk Larry (Tim Allen) are stuck inside of a liquor store. The officers outside, particularly Sheriff Fuller (Kurtwood Smith) and Deputy Calhoun (Dax Shepard) have no idea what’s going on, and the situation inside is far from cut-and-dry. It’s going to be a long Christmas.




Wednesday, 1 November 2017

Rings (2017) - Movie Review


Release Date: February 23, 2017 (AUS)
Genre: Horror, Psychological Thriller
Director: F. Javier Gutiérrez
Writers: David Loucka, Jacob Aaron Estes, Akiva Goldsman
Cast: Matilda Lutz, Alex Roe, Johnny Galecki, Vincent D’Onofrio, Aime Teegarden, Bonnie Morgan















 
 
 
Plot: Julia, while trying to discover where her boyfriend Holt has disappeared to, discovers a video on his computer. The infamous video that is the domain of Samara, now freed from her VHS confines and discovering new attention in the age of file-sharing. After receiving her courtesy phone call that she is a week from death, she sets out to discover the secrets behind the video and who exactly Samara is, leading to a discovery of a video-within-the-video that has never been seen before.

Acting: When it comes to less-than-satisfactory horror films, there are usually two modes of acting that most of them stick to: Loathsome characters that we are meant to be emotionally detached from so that we don’t feel bad when bad things happen to them, or cardboard cut-outs that achieve the same effect by making us fail to care if bad things happen to them. We’re very much in the latter category for the most part with this one. Lutz is rather plain and lifeless throughout, even once the creepy stuff starts happening, Roe matches her in most scenes while at least trying to give the film some drama, Galecki as the professor/leader of a cult surrounding Samara’s tape is okay if hideously underutilized, and Bonnie Morgan continues her stint as Samara from The Ring Two and is honestly still pretty scary. The only person here who consistently puts any effort in is D’Onofrio as a blind groundskeeper. His talent for character acting remains incredibly underrated and he imbues this largely expository role with quite a bit of unorthodox menace.


















Liked: Uh… yeah, I honestly got nothing for this one. I can’t even go with a facetious positive; that’s how underwhelming this is.

Disliked: The core notion of this film involving secrets that we haven’t seen before is quite laughable, considering how similar this is to the last two American Ring films. After all of the character background we’ve gotten about Samara in the past, you’d think that the filmmakers would focus more on her as a source of chills rather than as a source of pathos. But no, we just have to put another coat of paint onto her origin story to give the illusion that the story is moving forward as it keeps spinning its wheels in the mud. Hell, the tidbits we do learn this time around end up contradicting what we’ve already learnt about her. You’d think that, between this and the shameless recycling of plot beats (Woman watches video, spends most of the film haunted by Samara, goes to Samara’s hometown to discover who she was, etc.), the writers actively wanted us to forget that any other iteration of this story exists in the West. Of course, that’s a tall order considering how inferior it is as a basic horror film.

The scares are embarrassingly lame. Apart from re-using imagery and scares whole-cloth from the first two films (and likely the Japanese iterations), we have a gallery of jump scares put together in a vain attempt to startle the audience. Of course, whether you loath the advent of jump scares or not, it’s difficult to be really affected by them when they are this painfully telegraphed. The tension is razor-thin and blunt as a butter knife, likely as a result of the feeling of repetition that comes from how much of this film is taken from previous works. But that shouldn’t automatically be a bad thing: No matter the genre, every film is a combination of familiar elements; originality is not only rare but far less necessary than higher-brow filmgoers would have us believe. However, when dealing with a film that is so unsure of its own efficacy that it has to repeat history in order to seem relevant, you start to wonder why this film was made to begin with or, more importantly, why we’re watching it.

The idea of The Ring itself has only grown in relevancy in the Internet age. Sharing disturbing and weird videos to other people within a week of discovering it? Samara was basically the original creepypasta. This head-start for the series’ technophobic themes seems to have eluded the filmmakers because, quite frankly, this plot feels like it didn’t even need to be a Ring sequel. Even with the detours The Ring Two took with its possession premise, at least that still felt like it was a part of the same story. Despite all the plot and thematic retreading that is found here, the original notion of a videotape that kills you a week after watching it barely factors in.
 
Instead, it’s used as a flimsy excuse for what amounts to an American Gothic horror yarn that, even when removed from its ties with The Ring, is still underwhelming. What’s more, it’s underwhelming for the same reason as the scares: The plot twists are surprisingly obvious with this one. I say “surprisingly” because I’ve never seen a film so dependent on a single word to deliver its climactic shock… and yet, I was able to guess it as soon as it was alluded to, resulting in an absolute thud of an ending.

Of course, the film starts out with a couple of decent ideas, like the opening airplane crash and the sort of cult that has grown around the videotape and how it is meant to be part of some techno-pagan vision quest. However, neither of these ideas hold any weight, which kind of sucks because they are the only sparks of life in this entire production. The airplane crash is executed okay, even if it barely factors into the main story like most opening kills, and the cult is barely elaborated on. They had a sub-plot that, on its own, could have legitimized the fact that we’re getting a follow-up to a film that is rather ingrained in antiquated technology, and yet they seem to have no idea of how to use it properly. The film ends up throwing us around the narrative timeline with how suddenly time passes within the first third of the film, and yet it never gets into the genuinely promising ideas that such a group could offer the story. Then again, when you have the king of hack writers Akiva Goldsman batting clean-up for your script, this is the kind of half-cooked result you get.

Final Thoughts: The worst sin a horror movie can commit is being boring, and that isn’t even the worst of it where this film is concerned. This is a film that almost feels embarrassed that it even exists, between the frequent re-use of past ideas and a complete failure to flesh out its own. Add to this a very dull cast, save for Vincent D’Onofrio who at least seems to be trying, and a thoroughly underwhelming attempt at tension and chills and you have a film that shows why the Japanese remake trend died off during the 2000’s: Apparently, we’ve all just given up.

Thursday, 4 May 2017

CHiPs (2017) - Movie Review


Many times over the last few months, I have found myself defending what most call separating the art from the artist; basically, the idea of ignoring an artist’s real-world transgressions when it comes to discussing their art. Most of the time, I bring this up as a result of people (particularly when it comes to YouTube, I’ve noticed) performing mass subscription exoduses in response to something or other to do with racist comments. The reasons why, I think, are fairly obvious: Their work has nothing to do with politics or race, so why should it be judged on those terms? Of course, this mindset gets a little trickier when a person’s real-life mentality spills into their art, meaning that separation between the two is pretty much impossible.
 
Why do I bring this up? Well, for the first time in quite a while, I find myself compelled to look into just what exactly this film says about the guy who made it. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Monday, 17 October 2016

The Magnificent Seven (2016) - Movie Review



Even in the realms of cinematic remakes, this is a rather unique ouroborosian situation. While you are quickly Googling that word, I’ll get into why this is. Back when I looked at Slow West, I made brief mention of the relationship between Japanese and Western cinema and here is where we crash head-first into one of the first branches on that tree. Based on the Akira Kurosawa classic Seven Samurai, the original Magnificent Seven is a seminal staple of Old Hollywood and set in place an action blueprint of the rag-tag team of characters that come together to fight a great foe that would be copied verbatim for decades to follow. If you’ve ever watched A Bug’s Life, then you have a pretty good idea of the formula. With that in mind, and the fact that this is a reimagining of a remake of a definitive piece of cinema (all of which has sprouted its own niches and sub-genres in their wake), this could prove a tricky one. It is also, based solely on the trailer, one of the few films this year that I have genuinely been anxious to see for myself. Time to dig in and see how this holds up, considering this film has a lot that it needs to prove.

Friday, 10 July 2015

Jurassic World (2015) - Movie Review


Time for part two in our look into classic genre franchises from the 80’s-90's that are getting remakes lately… yes, this is enough of a specific trend for me to call this "a look into". Jurassic Park, the original at least, is the perfect example of the nostalgic classic: An old(er)-school sci-fi adventure that is unbelievably silly, and more than a little stupid, but it has held up far better than a lot of other films from the same era for most people and is considered still as good as it was when it came out. Watching it again, it’s kind of amazing how good it looks even today effects-wise, but that might just be the inner SF snob in me who has grown weary of the near-endless CGI. Then The Lost World came out, and aside from Pete Postlethwaite doing his best to salvage the thing, it was pretty god-awful. Then came the third film, which somehow managed to one-up the lack of effort from before and somehow made a film that’s worse. Between the sheer awe-inspiration of the first, the animal rights “we’re-making-28-Days-Later-look-restrained” idiocy of the second and the utter boredom of the third, this easily has the worst build-up of the three revamps I’ll be looking at: Say what you want about the Mad Max sequels, at least they have the benefit of being insanely influential in their own rights. Let’s see if this film can go above the low bar 2 and 3 set for it.


Saturday, 28 March 2015

Run All Night (2015) - Movie Review


Even though I have been carrying on with this compulsive list-of-every-movie-I-see-each-year gig since 2012, I’ve only been taking it… seriously(?) for a few months now with this review blog. The short time I have been doing this makes me think that, quite frankly, Liam Neeson needs to slow the hell down because I have covered three of his films in that time. That, combined with the numerous films he has been in since Taken hit it big, makes me really regret feeling burn-out over the Oscar season pics because I am really starting to grow bored of Neeson’s brand of action fodder. Not to say that he’s bad or anything, as he’s more than capable of playing the hero in these films, but he doesn’t really bring anything special to the mix with his presence. Put him next to someone like Jason Statham, who has not one but two films coming out very soon, and that lack of an USP becomes even more blatant.  So, best we can hope for is that the production around him is solid enough… but do we get that this time around? Time for Neeson no. 4: This is Run All Night.

Monday, 13 October 2014

The Judge (2014) - Movie Review



Whenever people bring up how great actors like Jack Nicholson or Liam Neeson are, it always kind of confuses me since they play every role they get exactly the same. Really, the only difference between the roles they, and a few other actors, get is that they may swear more in some of them. Ultimately, another actor who is making a fortune with this practice is one Robert Downey Jr.: An intelligent, cunning, anti-social prick that really has a heart of gold and wants to do good; the Sherlock Holmes movies, his cameo in Jon Favreau’s Chef, Tony Stark in the Marvel Cinematic Universe… actually, pretty much anything he’s been in since Iron Man in 2008 has had him in this role.