Warning: Spoilers Throughout
Well, it was more spooky than scary. The translation from video game to screen was the best I've seen - they took all the right elements from the game, and a lot of the shots, camera angles, sets, etc were spot-on perfect.
On the other hand, a lot of the acting was atrocious. Boromir and the Borg Queen did a great job, but most everyone else was disposable. Rose and Cybil, who had most of the screentime, were particularly bad. The voice actors from the games would have done a better job. But then, bad acting is part of the standard horror movie experience.
And while I'm on the subject of horror movie cliches, Silent Hill had more examples of "why did she do that?" than any movie in recent memory. Characters made weird decisions throughout.
Also, it seemed to cater to the dumbest members of the audience. I'm not saying that the movie was dumb, I'm just saying that every time a slightly complicated plot point would come up, the director would hit you over the head with it until he was sure you got it. The characters would have the same line of dialogue six times in a row, or they would beat you to death with the fact that there were two dimensions.
.
.
.
.
Okay, now the real spoilers:
.
.
.
.
.
I thought they were particularly cruel to Cybil. We were already led to believe she was dead after she was beaten by the cultists, and then they show that she's alive just so they can graphically kill her again. After drawing out her death so long, I was sure she was going to get rescued, but they decided just to be cruel instead. I don't need to see every second of a face bubbling and burning off to have fun at a movie.
And I didn't care for the ending. Okay, the idea that she stays in the alternate universe was cool, it's just the way it was presented that got on my nerves. They drew it out for too long, and once again, they beat you over the head with the fact it was two worlds. You knew as soon as she entered the house that she was still in Silent Hill, just by the lighting. But they kept going back and forth, husband on couch (lit in bright sunlight), Rose with empty couch (lit in grey), husband, Rose, husband, Rose, husband, Rose, until the audience wants to cry out, "WE GET IT ALREADY!!!!"
Also, it seemed like the ending was setting it up for a sequel. This bothers me, because Silent Hill doesn't need that kind of setup. If they want to follow the "feel" of the video games (or comics, etc) then each movie should be it's own self-contained story with its own set of characters. The only common thread would be the spooky ghost town of Silent Hill.
Overall I liked it, but that doesn't mean I thought it was "good". There's a lot of "bad" movies I love.
Monday, April 24, 2006
Monday, April 10, 2006
Slither
Depending on your point of view, this is either one of the greatest bad movies ever made, or just one of the worst movies ever made. Given my love of bad horror movies, you can probably guess which way I feel. It's every bit as dumb as the trailers made it out to be; but I loved every minute of it. Take some of the funniest unintentionally-funny classic horror films, add lots of intentional humor, and better special effects, and you'll see what I mean. Kind of like "Eight-Legged Freaks" or to a lesser extent "Tremors", but I liked this one better. It felt like what Tim Burton was trying to do with "Mars Attacks", only with a funnier script.
I usually hate it in horror movies when they're able to kill all the aliens by just killing the leader. "The Faculty" for instance. But in this movie it actually made sense, because the movie keeps reminding you that all the worms are just extensions of the head alien, who controls the minds of all the infected humans. That's especially cool because in an intentionally-bad movie such as this one, things really didn't need to make sense.
Anyway, you can probably tell from the previews alone if this is your cup of tea. I know not many people share my love of bad sci-fi/horror, whether intentionally-bad or not. So, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, "If you are the type of person who likes that sort of thing, then that's the sort of thing you will like."
I usually hate it in horror movies when they're able to kill all the aliens by just killing the leader. "The Faculty" for instance. But in this movie it actually made sense, because the movie keeps reminding you that all the worms are just extensions of the head alien, who controls the minds of all the infected humans. That's especially cool because in an intentionally-bad movie such as this one, things really didn't need to make sense.
Anyway, you can probably tell from the previews alone if this is your cup of tea. I know not many people share my love of bad sci-fi/horror, whether intentionally-bad or not. So, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, "If you are the type of person who likes that sort of thing, then that's the sort of thing you will like."
Monday, April 03, 2006
Superman Returns
After 19 years without a Superman movie... 19 years! Can you believe it? It's Superman, for cripe's sake! With all the comic book movies coming out... and Supes being THE mascot for comic books in general... How on Earth did it take so long? He's one of the biggest cultural icons in the world! I guess that tells you just how bad "Superman 4: The Quest for Peace" really was, that nobody wanted to touch the property for such a long time. I'm so glad Batman was able to recover after "Batman and Robin", I'd hate to have had to wait 19 years for "Batman Begins"...
I'm getting off track here. *Ahem*
After 19 years without a Superman movie, the series returns with huge success. And I do mean "series". Unlike Batman Begins, which starts the series over, Superman Returns is more or less a direct sequel to the Christopher Reeve movies. And it does it sooooo well. It really feels like one of the series - same musical score, same sense of humor, same feeling of over-grand fantastic-ness. Brandon Routh does a great job in emulating the Reeves version of Clark Kent. The rest of the cast reinvents their characters, and in most cases it's a great improvement. Nothing against Gene Hackman - I loved his Luthor - but Kevin Spacey is a god. And the new Lois is nothing like Margot Kidder, but she still makes a great Lois.
Okay, I'm gushing. I swore I wouldn't gush.
But here's what I really liked... the special effects. Superman needs good special effects. In the movie's best action scene, he saves an airplane from crashing. Hey, didn't he do that in the first Superman movie? Well, sure. But in the original movie, Supes grabs onto a wing, and acts like an engine. Nice, but kind of boring. In Superman Returns, he's fighting G-forces, the wings are shredding off, the tail is on fire, and so on. While the original movies made everything look so easy for Supes, this one showed how difficult things really were. Having super strength and being able to fly does NOT mean you can just grab an airplane and carry it to the ground; you're going to have to overcome a lot of laws of science.
Which is not to say the movie gets the science right. It's still a fantasy, and if you have a reasonable understanding of physics, you'll see plenty of holes. But if you're looking for holes, you shouldn't be buying tickets to comic book movies.
Seriously, the only thing I didn't like about the movie was that I saw it on IMAX. This "select scenes are shown in 3D" is for the birds. Having a flashing indicator telling you when to put the glasses on was very distracting. Also, the 3D wasn't that great. This was supposed to be the first movie shot with some new sort of 3D technology, but I was not impressed. Note, this might vary from person to person, or from theater to theater... For still images, the 3D looked like a picture from a viewmaster. Each layer of the scene looked like a 2D cardboard cutout, floating in front of the other cutouts. But when there was movement, it was just a blurry mess. My eyes simply could not focus fast enough to keep up with the action.
Where is the new technology? There's been great 3D movies in Disney theme parks for decades. The 3D in Superman Returns wasn't even half as good as the films I saw at Epcot 20 years ago. A tip, if you do see it on IMAX: don't push the glasses all the way up the bridge of your nose. Experiment with different distances from your eyes. I had to rest the glasses on the tip of my nose to see the 3D properly.
I also question their decisions of which scenes to film in 3D. There were only four (possible spoilers)... the space plane scene, the flashback with young clark running through the fields, the scene where the boat broke in half, and the final shot of Superman flying off right before the credits. I was surprised they didn't make the opening in 3D... with all the computer-rendered planets and the opening credits flying out, it seemed like a natural for the 3D treatment. And it would have been a great way blow the audience away right from the start.
To sum up, I loved the movie but hated the theater. So bring on the sequels! (And try not to screw it up this time!)
I'm getting off track here. *Ahem*
After 19 years without a Superman movie, the series returns with huge success. And I do mean "series". Unlike Batman Begins, which starts the series over, Superman Returns is more or less a direct sequel to the Christopher Reeve movies. And it does it sooooo well. It really feels like one of the series - same musical score, same sense of humor, same feeling of over-grand fantastic-ness. Brandon Routh does a great job in emulating the Reeves version of Clark Kent. The rest of the cast reinvents their characters, and in most cases it's a great improvement. Nothing against Gene Hackman - I loved his Luthor - but Kevin Spacey is a god. And the new Lois is nothing like Margot Kidder, but she still makes a great Lois.
Okay, I'm gushing. I swore I wouldn't gush.
But here's what I really liked... the special effects. Superman needs good special effects. In the movie's best action scene, he saves an airplane from crashing. Hey, didn't he do that in the first Superman movie? Well, sure. But in the original movie, Supes grabs onto a wing, and acts like an engine. Nice, but kind of boring. In Superman Returns, he's fighting G-forces, the wings are shredding off, the tail is on fire, and so on. While the original movies made everything look so easy for Supes, this one showed how difficult things really were. Having super strength and being able to fly does NOT mean you can just grab an airplane and carry it to the ground; you're going to have to overcome a lot of laws of science.
Which is not to say the movie gets the science right. It's still a fantasy, and if you have a reasonable understanding of physics, you'll see plenty of holes. But if you're looking for holes, you shouldn't be buying tickets to comic book movies.
Seriously, the only thing I didn't like about the movie was that I saw it on IMAX. This "select scenes are shown in 3D" is for the birds. Having a flashing indicator telling you when to put the glasses on was very distracting. Also, the 3D wasn't that great. This was supposed to be the first movie shot with some new sort of 3D technology, but I was not impressed. Note, this might vary from person to person, or from theater to theater... For still images, the 3D looked like a picture from a viewmaster. Each layer of the scene looked like a 2D cardboard cutout, floating in front of the other cutouts. But when there was movement, it was just a blurry mess. My eyes simply could not focus fast enough to keep up with the action.
Where is the new technology? There's been great 3D movies in Disney theme parks for decades. The 3D in Superman Returns wasn't even half as good as the films I saw at Epcot 20 years ago. A tip, if you do see it on IMAX: don't push the glasses all the way up the bridge of your nose. Experiment with different distances from your eyes. I had to rest the glasses on the tip of my nose to see the 3D properly.
I also question their decisions of which scenes to film in 3D. There were only four (possible spoilers)... the space plane scene, the flashback with young clark running through the fields, the scene where the boat broke in half, and the final shot of Superman flying off right before the credits. I was surprised they didn't make the opening in 3D... with all the computer-rendered planets and the opening credits flying out, it seemed like a natural for the 3D treatment. And it would have been a great way blow the audience away right from the start.
To sum up, I loved the movie but hated the theater. So bring on the sequels! (And try not to screw it up this time!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)