What was the last movie you've seen?
Re: What was the last movie you've seen?
No you're right it was sped up in places, which is why I enabled english subs
Thy ban hammer shalt strike 
-
BogusMeatFactory
- Next-Gen
- Posts: 6770
- Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:16 pm
- Location: Farmington Hills, MI
- Contact:
Re: What was the last movie you've seen?
See everyone says that, but I am telling you, the whole film was moving at 2.5 times speed and the moments that were sped up were a literal blur. You would think that you should be able too see a car explode, but not from what I saw. Again, I just have to see it again just to make sure I wasn't going crazy/getting old.Pulsar_t wrote:No you're right it was sped up in places, which is why I enabled english subs
-I am the idiot that likes to have fun and be happy.Ack wrote:I don't know, chief, the haunting feeling of lust I feel whenever I look at your avatar makes me think it's real.
Re: What was the last movie you've seen?
When I saw it everything seemed to be normal well relatively normal . The only sections I had trouble understanding was his hallucinations, but there were only a few of them, and I got the jist of what they were saying. Everything else while a little fast and hectic at time was comprehensible.
. The only sections I had trouble understanding was his hallucinations, but there were only a few of them, and I got the jist of what they were saying. Everything else while a little fast and hectic at time was comprehensible.
Re: What was the last movie you've seen?
Wish I knew anything about those new digital projectors, but I haven't been to any projection room in yonksBogusMeatFactory wrote:See everyone says that, but I am telling you, the whole film was moving at 2.5 times speed and the moments that were sped up were a literal blur. You would think that you should be able too see a car explode, but not from what I saw. Again, I just have to see it again just to make sure I wasn't going crazy/getting old.Pulsar_t wrote:No you're right it was sped up in places, which is why I enabled english subs
Perhaps the software was glitching out.
People Under the Stairs
This weird little movie is a perfect time capsule for the cultural transition from the 80s into the 90s. There's even a small telly playing scenes of CNN's coverage of the Gulf War. Still watchable, and I say this after my first ever viewing
Thy ban hammer shalt strike
Re: What was the last movie you've seen?
They played that all the time on TBS before they became comedy-oriented. A real underrated Wes Craven film. Heck, TBS did a lot of interesting horror movies back in the day.Pulsar_t wrote:People Under the Stairs
This weird little movie is a perfect time capsule for the cultural transition from the 80s into the 90s. There's even a small telly playing scenes of CNN's coverage of the Gulf War. Still watchable, and I say this after my first ever viewing
Xeogred wrote:The obvious answer is that it's time for the Dreamcast 2.
Re: What was the last movie you've seen?
So many movies to get to… So little time. It’s been a busy few of weeks at work, so I haven’t had too much time to write (or do much else, really). But I wanted to get these down while they were still fresh. Despite their shortness (though some of them ended up longer than I thought they would), I hope they still give you a decent idea of what to expect.
Grave Encounters
For the sixth episode of their TV show, the cast of Grave Encounters has themselves locked in a decayed insane asylum with a violent past. They go in hoping to catch some footage of paranormal activity and- Praise the Specters!- luck is on their side. The only problem is, they may not make it out of the asylum alive to revel in their glory.
You would think that such seasoned investigators would be smart enough to know that entering any abandoned, run down, insane asylum is an automatic invitation for all involved to be transported to the tenth circle of hell, but I guess the fame went and got to their heads.
It’s really hard for me to think of too much to say about this one. This is a pretty decent ‘found footage’ film. It’s pretty typical as far as its genre goes. Over ninety percent of it is filmed in green screened, shaky cam. Everyone ends up getting split up. You know the drill.
It has a few good scares and I rather liked the design of the ghosts and their unhinged, snake-like mouths. It’s all appropriately unsettling. The acting is pretty stellar compared to some other ‘found footage’ films I’ve seen. Unfortunately, most of the characters aren’t likeable enough to really care about whether or not they get to stick around.
The film ends without really answering any of the viewers questions, but I guess the filmmakers thought that was sort of okay because they went and made another one…
Grave Encounters 2
Several years after the events of the first film, the footage filmed of the last episode of Grave Encounters cast has been turned into a movie. Some fans of the film (well, really one obsessive fan and his unwitting friends) head off to the hospital to see if the events of the film really happened and they all quickly become targets of the buildings malevolent, mind-bending residents.
Wait, you didn’t want or care for a sequel? Well too bad, Jimmy, you’re getting one anyway.
Amazingly, the kids in this follow-up end up being even less likable and dumber than the characters in the first movie. But that’s okay, because the same ghosts from the first film are also back to cleans us of their stupidity by horrifically murdering them one-by-one.
The plot and workings of the building do get fleshed out much more in the sequel, which is nice, but it’s sort of a grab bag of ideas from other films. The pacing of the first half of the film suffers from a slow build-up, but once they make it to the asylum everything appropriately goes to hell in a hand basket. Of course, most of the hell-hand-basketing could have been avoided if the characters had followed their first instinct, which was: Holy s&^#! Time to flee! Instead they follow their a$$hole of a leader back in to retrieve the schools cameras. Screw that, chief. I would have walked home.
The ending ends up being better than the abrupt one we’re treated to in the first film, though not by much. Definitely more bloody, but not still not much better.
Together, both Grave Encounters films are nice distractions if you like ‘found footage’ and ghost stories. Perfectly fine for an evening viewing, but not anything you’d likely come back to or write home about. Just be aware of the extreme shaky cam. I will not be blamed for your motion sickness.
Big Bad Wolf
Somewhere in the jungle of Cameroon, a man shoots and wounds a wild beast after the creature kills most of his hunting party, including his brother.
Several years later, the mans nephew, Derek, is trying to get in with a local fraternity and invites two of it’s members, their girlfriends and his best friend Sam, to his abusive step-father’s cabin for the weekend. While there, the group encounters a walking, talking werewolf who starts to knock them off one-by-one. Derek and Sam manage to escape with their lives and vow to confirm the identity of the werewolf and kill him.
Big Bad Wolf is different than a lot of other werewolf movies. In most movie adaptations the wolf is just a mindless beast driven to kill because of some unholy curse. But this one is just an a$$hole. He’s not just some animal driven by instinct or trying to defend his secret. Oh no, this one can talk and his snippy one-liners make you perfectly aware that he is not only fully cognizant of what he’s doing, but he’s enjoying the terror, rape and murder he’s committing. Clearly this is the result of what happens when you go and curse people all willy-nilly. You risk giving douchebags superhuman power and turn them into super douchebags… who are a pain in the ass to kill.
All of this would be fine and dandy for a horror film except for the aforementioned ‘snippy one-liners’ that the writers insisted on adding to the wolfs dialogue. This turns the film into less of The Howling or even Ginger Snaps and more into Leprechaun. It’s made all the more puzzling because the wolf’s human incarnation does not speak like that at all. In human form he’s a strict, threatening a$$, but I guess once he transforms he feels confident enough to try out that comedy routine he’s been secretly practicing in the shower all these years. Example:
Wolf: Little pigs, let me come in.
Sam: Fu*& you.
Wolf: …That’s not very nice.
He’s not funny and unoriginal. Aren’t those, like, two cardinal sins of comedy?
The change in tone is so drastic that it almost feels like there are two separate movies going on, as the tone of the film seems to change as the villain does. Human=Serious. Wolf=Nursery Rhyme Jokes. Depending on your preferences you’ll either find this extremely odd or hilarious.
The acting in this movie is hit or miss. The adults are pretty serviceable as many of them have long acting careers, but the kids… Oi. With the exception of Sam (played by Kimberly J. Brown) all of their performances come off as either stilted or forced, like they’re just trying to spit the lines out so they could go home. This includes lead Derek. I suppose it doesn’t matter though, as just about every kid who’s there, with the exception of Derek and Sam, are there just for the sake of being doggy chew toys anyway. *shrugs*
I applaud the film for trying to go in a different direction with the whole werewolf thing, but its inconsistent tone is a strike against it. Add in the poor acting, lack of mystery, why-did-they-even-show-him-transforming level CGI, unnecessary teen angst and wholly unlikable characters and you have a recipe for a movie with a very specific target audience. If you like Leprechaun and wish it had had more wolf action, than feel free to have a go. Just don’t go in expecting Werewolf in London.
Spirit Stalkers
Spirit Stalkers is about a group of ghost hunters with their own TV show called - wait for it - Spirit Stalkers. The goal of the show is simple: Find ghosts. The difference being that they actually try to come up with rational, scientific explanations for any phenomena they come across. Unfortunately, every time the hosts declare “Mystery Solved!” their ratings take a dip and the show is under imminent threat of cancellation if they don’t find some real ghosts soon.
Enter Gloria, troubled homeowner who’s new dwelling seems to be besieged with strange phenomena. The only problem, are the strange occurrences the result of an actual haunting, or are they the result of Gloria’s well-documented, troubled mind?
Spirit Stalkers is a movie filmed on a low budget and it shows. But that doesn’t mean that I wasn’t impressed by it. What it lacks in production values it makes up for in atmosphere. It’s a nice reminder that music, angle and mood can go a long way in setting a tone in a horror movie without those expensive CGI shots. There were times in this movie when I felt actual apprehension for poor Gloria as she walked around a house, not knowing what the hell was going on. And I haven’t felt that particular creepy tingle in a long time.
Most of the cast looks to be made up of the director/lead actor’s family, friends and probably some other random acquaintances. This makes the acting a bit hit-or-miss and, honestly, I was more entertained by some of the side characters than I was with much of the main cast. And that’s not to say that the acting was bad, just that some of it often felt a little off. For instance, Steve Hodgin’s character would be going for earnest, but end up coming across as a little too earnest and I felt that Gloria’s ex-husband went from not showing enough emotion to almost going full on berserk. They’re little things, sure, but the film still seems to flow rather well, even with the occasional hiccup.
The movie is filmed in both normal (Gloria’s perspective) and a more ‘tv/found’ style (I wouldn’t call it Found Footage. It doesn’t quite come across that way), though the latter segments are regulated to the moments when the Spirit Stalkers are doing their show. There really is little difference between the two methods of filming, and the transitions are so smooth that they’re not even close to jarring, even when the two meld together when Gloria and the Spirit Stalker crew finally meet up.
One nice thing I found about the movie was the premise of the Spirit Stalker show itself. This isn’t your typical show where they use a bunch of heavy, fancy equipment and walk around in the dark looking for ghosts. The Spirit Stalker crew works with the lights on and investigates sights hoping for ghosts, but looking for reasonable explanations for the phenomena they’re there to investigate. It’s a nice change of pace from what we’ve grown to expect from these shows.
Overall, I was quite happy with this low-budget affair. It may have be shot cheaply and have so-so acting, but the effective atmosphere more than makes up for it. People who enjoy ghost stories should give this one a shot.
Neverlake
Jenny, a young English woman, takes some time away from school to visit her father, Dr. Brooks, in Italy. Brooks is a former doctor turned archeologist, and his current obsession is the Lake of Idols, a lake previously worshipped by the ancient Etruscans and said to have held magical powers. While there she inadvertently discovers some of her father’s deep, dark secrets about his past. Secrets that could very well get her killed.
Here’s another movie I’d never heard about that I was impressed by. Neverlake is a mix of ghost story and medical mystery. The movie is framed solely around Jenny’s perspective and there is a distinct dream-like quality permeating most of the film, helped along by Jenny’s recitation of poetic prose. It has, in a sense, almost an underlying feel of Romanticism mixed in with the ever-increasingly obvious ominous-ness. These touches, along with much of the imagery, work well together, but do lean more towards a romantic, fantasy vibe, rather than a straight-up horror. It’s an interesting mix, to say the least.
It’s never really in question that something is inherently wrong with Jenny’s father, or his housekeeper, Olga. Their words of warm welcome and gracious acceptance clash horribly with their secretive ways and perpetually frowning faces. The odd visit only continues, as her neglectful father constantly slips away on unknown errands and mysterious Olga continually feeds Jenny pills – which she swallows without hesitation – that the distant woman refers to as vitamins. (Pro-tip, kids: Never swallow crap some stranger calls “v-tah-mins”.) Other than that, Jenny is generally left to herself.
Obviously bored out of her freaking mind, Jenny visits the lake her dad is studying and comes across a young, blindfolded girl, who asks her if she can take her back to the orphanage. Of course, the orphanage comes across as more as a deteriorated insane asylum than a home for poor children. The pale, almost ethereal-like child introduces her to other sickly, pale children of varying ages, each with their own unique affliction. This is where the story starts to turn a bit more ‘gothic’, as Jenny often returns to visit with them and read stories and poetry to the rather morbid, yet capricious children. Add to this that Jenny never really questions what they tell her and goes along with what they ask without question, just adds to Jenny’s childlike naiveté and the films more dream-like atmosphere. Not that that won’t keep you from continuing to question Jenny’s decision-making skills. I’d blame it on the boarding school upbringing.
The issues that plague the film are all small, but add up enough to knock it down from what could have ended up becoming a modern classic. Some transitions are too abrupt, the characters could have greatly benefited from being fleshed out more and some set-ups are either never connected or don’t make a lick of sense. For instance, Jenny tells us that her British parents met in Tuscany, but that she was taken by her grandmother and raised in America at a boarding school. So then, why does she have such a tick, British accent? This is never explained and it’s often small instances such as that that keep the movie from being as great as it could be.
Overall, I was quite surprised by Neverlake. It has an interesting mix of genres that the viewer will either find fascinating or infuriating. I found the use of poetry quite interesting and felt it mixed well with the overall vibe of the film, but I could see how some viewers could find it pretentious. It has a few notable inconsistencies, but the visuals and the atmosphere do a lot to make up for it. If you’re looking for a relatively tame ghost story (it’s NR, but I’d stick it at a solid PG-13) and don’t mind that it focuses on teenagers, than you could do a lot worse than Neverlake.
In Dreams
Claire is a woman who has had strange, disjointed, prophetic dreams ever since she was a little girl. Up until recently, they’ve merely been a nuisance. But after a devastating personal tragedy, Claire’s dreams become more intense, even going so far as to break through while she’s awake. She’s convinced that the visions are leading her in the direction of a local, yet unknown, serial killer, but as the vision grow stronger and more detailed she finds herself involuntarily going down a very dark rabbit hole.
This one feels like more of a miss. Though I will say, Annette Bening pulls off an impressive performance as a woman thrown over the edge and diving head-first into the land of CooCooville. She is the films anchor, and with the films eventual disjointedness, that anchor was needed.
Even the late arrival of Robert Downey Jr. can’t seem to fully measure up to her (or his the actor playing his younger counterpart.) He tries to overtake the scenes he’s in by sheer force of will, but his character never seems dangerous enough for us to muster up the level of suspense the film is going for. Downey’s character was far more menacing when merely being hinted at. You can see Downey is trying (bless him), but you can tell it’s not going to hit the nerve they were going for and the blame for that should sit less on his shoulders and more squarely on the material he was given to work with. But at least he fared better than most of the other characters, who suffer from perpetual meh-ness to pure unlikability.
Plot-wise, the film chugs along serviceably…Right up until the last act. But this is a movie less concerned about story and more concerned about visuals and symbols, most of which are pulled from folk tales and children’s stories. A child’s production of “Snow White” isn’t merely a convenient plot device for a kidnapping, but a direct reference point. It’s the elements from this story - the color red, mirrors, abandoned children - that permeate the film. (Oh, and apples. Apples everywhere. Never have I seen such a wasted use of apples nor have they ever been so dangerous.) The only problem is, it takes a skilled hand to use symbols properly and sadly the filmmakers don’t seem to have had any such knowledgeable individuals on hand.
In Dreams is a weird mix of physiological thriller with elements of The Nightmare on Elm Street mixed in. And that’s part of where it flounders. If they had cut back on the more supernatural elements and reigned in their excessive apple use this could have probably been an interesting thriller. But it suffers from talented people trying too hard to do too much and spending too much time trying to be too artistically clever. Which is ultimately unfortunate. You can see the elements for something good are all present (or at least I see them), but they’re all woven together with crappy stitching thread that causes it all to fall apart in the end. If you’re a big fan of thrillers or films with a strong focus on visuals you might find something to enjoy here. Just don’t go in expecting too much. Unless you love Annette Bening, than this might actually be worth it for you.
Grave Encounters
For the sixth episode of their TV show, the cast of Grave Encounters has themselves locked in a decayed insane asylum with a violent past. They go in hoping to catch some footage of paranormal activity and- Praise the Specters!- luck is on their side. The only problem is, they may not make it out of the asylum alive to revel in their glory.
You would think that such seasoned investigators would be smart enough to know that entering any abandoned, run down, insane asylum is an automatic invitation for all involved to be transported to the tenth circle of hell, but I guess the fame went and got to their heads.
It’s really hard for me to think of too much to say about this one. This is a pretty decent ‘found footage’ film. It’s pretty typical as far as its genre goes. Over ninety percent of it is filmed in green screened, shaky cam. Everyone ends up getting split up. You know the drill.
It has a few good scares and I rather liked the design of the ghosts and their unhinged, snake-like mouths. It’s all appropriately unsettling. The acting is pretty stellar compared to some other ‘found footage’ films I’ve seen. Unfortunately, most of the characters aren’t likeable enough to really care about whether or not they get to stick around.
The film ends without really answering any of the viewers questions, but I guess the filmmakers thought that was sort of okay because they went and made another one…
Grave Encounters 2
Several years after the events of the first film, the footage filmed of the last episode of Grave Encounters cast has been turned into a movie. Some fans of the film (well, really one obsessive fan and his unwitting friends) head off to the hospital to see if the events of the film really happened and they all quickly become targets of the buildings malevolent, mind-bending residents.
Wait, you didn’t want or care for a sequel? Well too bad, Jimmy, you’re getting one anyway.
Amazingly, the kids in this follow-up end up being even less likable and dumber than the characters in the first movie. But that’s okay, because the same ghosts from the first film are also back to cleans us of their stupidity by horrifically murdering them one-by-one.
The plot and workings of the building do get fleshed out much more in the sequel, which is nice, but it’s sort of a grab bag of ideas from other films. The pacing of the first half of the film suffers from a slow build-up, but once they make it to the asylum everything appropriately goes to hell in a hand basket. Of course, most of the hell-hand-basketing could have been avoided if the characters had followed their first instinct, which was: Holy s&^#! Time to flee! Instead they follow their a$$hole of a leader back in to retrieve the schools cameras. Screw that, chief. I would have walked home.
The ending ends up being better than the abrupt one we’re treated to in the first film, though not by much. Definitely more bloody, but not still not much better.
Together, both Grave Encounters films are nice distractions if you like ‘found footage’ and ghost stories. Perfectly fine for an evening viewing, but not anything you’d likely come back to or write home about. Just be aware of the extreme shaky cam. I will not be blamed for your motion sickness.
Big Bad Wolf
Somewhere in the jungle of Cameroon, a man shoots and wounds a wild beast after the creature kills most of his hunting party, including his brother.
Several years later, the mans nephew, Derek, is trying to get in with a local fraternity and invites two of it’s members, their girlfriends and his best friend Sam, to his abusive step-father’s cabin for the weekend. While there, the group encounters a walking, talking werewolf who starts to knock them off one-by-one. Derek and Sam manage to escape with their lives and vow to confirm the identity of the werewolf and kill him.
Big Bad Wolf is different than a lot of other werewolf movies. In most movie adaptations the wolf is just a mindless beast driven to kill because of some unholy curse. But this one is just an a$$hole. He’s not just some animal driven by instinct or trying to defend his secret. Oh no, this one can talk and his snippy one-liners make you perfectly aware that he is not only fully cognizant of what he’s doing, but he’s enjoying the terror, rape and murder he’s committing. Clearly this is the result of what happens when you go and curse people all willy-nilly. You risk giving douchebags superhuman power and turn them into super douchebags… who are a pain in the ass to kill.
All of this would be fine and dandy for a horror film except for the aforementioned ‘snippy one-liners’ that the writers insisted on adding to the wolfs dialogue. This turns the film into less of The Howling or even Ginger Snaps and more into Leprechaun. It’s made all the more puzzling because the wolf’s human incarnation does not speak like that at all. In human form he’s a strict, threatening a$$, but I guess once he transforms he feels confident enough to try out that comedy routine he’s been secretly practicing in the shower all these years. Example:
Wolf: Little pigs, let me come in.
Sam: Fu*& you.
Wolf: …That’s not very nice.
He’s not funny and unoriginal. Aren’t those, like, two cardinal sins of comedy?
The change in tone is so drastic that it almost feels like there are two separate movies going on, as the tone of the film seems to change as the villain does. Human=Serious. Wolf=Nursery Rhyme Jokes. Depending on your preferences you’ll either find this extremely odd or hilarious.
The acting in this movie is hit or miss. The adults are pretty serviceable as many of them have long acting careers, but the kids… Oi. With the exception of Sam (played by Kimberly J. Brown) all of their performances come off as either stilted or forced, like they’re just trying to spit the lines out so they could go home. This includes lead Derek. I suppose it doesn’t matter though, as just about every kid who’s there, with the exception of Derek and Sam, are there just for the sake of being doggy chew toys anyway. *shrugs*
I applaud the film for trying to go in a different direction with the whole werewolf thing, but its inconsistent tone is a strike against it. Add in the poor acting, lack of mystery, why-did-they-even-show-him-transforming level CGI, unnecessary teen angst and wholly unlikable characters and you have a recipe for a movie with a very specific target audience. If you like Leprechaun and wish it had had more wolf action, than feel free to have a go. Just don’t go in expecting Werewolf in London.
Spirit Stalkers
Spirit Stalkers is about a group of ghost hunters with their own TV show called - wait for it - Spirit Stalkers. The goal of the show is simple: Find ghosts. The difference being that they actually try to come up with rational, scientific explanations for any phenomena they come across. Unfortunately, every time the hosts declare “Mystery Solved!” their ratings take a dip and the show is under imminent threat of cancellation if they don’t find some real ghosts soon.
Enter Gloria, troubled homeowner who’s new dwelling seems to be besieged with strange phenomena. The only problem, are the strange occurrences the result of an actual haunting, or are they the result of Gloria’s well-documented, troubled mind?
Spirit Stalkers is a movie filmed on a low budget and it shows. But that doesn’t mean that I wasn’t impressed by it. What it lacks in production values it makes up for in atmosphere. It’s a nice reminder that music, angle and mood can go a long way in setting a tone in a horror movie without those expensive CGI shots. There were times in this movie when I felt actual apprehension for poor Gloria as she walked around a house, not knowing what the hell was going on. And I haven’t felt that particular creepy tingle in a long time.
Most of the cast looks to be made up of the director/lead actor’s family, friends and probably some other random acquaintances. This makes the acting a bit hit-or-miss and, honestly, I was more entertained by some of the side characters than I was with much of the main cast. And that’s not to say that the acting was bad, just that some of it often felt a little off. For instance, Steve Hodgin’s character would be going for earnest, but end up coming across as a little too earnest and I felt that Gloria’s ex-husband went from not showing enough emotion to almost going full on berserk. They’re little things, sure, but the film still seems to flow rather well, even with the occasional hiccup.
The movie is filmed in both normal (Gloria’s perspective) and a more ‘tv/found’ style (I wouldn’t call it Found Footage. It doesn’t quite come across that way), though the latter segments are regulated to the moments when the Spirit Stalkers are doing their show. There really is little difference between the two methods of filming, and the transitions are so smooth that they’re not even close to jarring, even when the two meld together when Gloria and the Spirit Stalker crew finally meet up.
One nice thing I found about the movie was the premise of the Spirit Stalker show itself. This isn’t your typical show where they use a bunch of heavy, fancy equipment and walk around in the dark looking for ghosts. The Spirit Stalker crew works with the lights on and investigates sights hoping for ghosts, but looking for reasonable explanations for the phenomena they’re there to investigate. It’s a nice change of pace from what we’ve grown to expect from these shows.
Overall, I was quite happy with this low-budget affair. It may have be shot cheaply and have so-so acting, but the effective atmosphere more than makes up for it. People who enjoy ghost stories should give this one a shot.
Neverlake
Jenny, a young English woman, takes some time away from school to visit her father, Dr. Brooks, in Italy. Brooks is a former doctor turned archeologist, and his current obsession is the Lake of Idols, a lake previously worshipped by the ancient Etruscans and said to have held magical powers. While there she inadvertently discovers some of her father’s deep, dark secrets about his past. Secrets that could very well get her killed.
Here’s another movie I’d never heard about that I was impressed by. Neverlake is a mix of ghost story and medical mystery. The movie is framed solely around Jenny’s perspective and there is a distinct dream-like quality permeating most of the film, helped along by Jenny’s recitation of poetic prose. It has, in a sense, almost an underlying feel of Romanticism mixed in with the ever-increasingly obvious ominous-ness. These touches, along with much of the imagery, work well together, but do lean more towards a romantic, fantasy vibe, rather than a straight-up horror. It’s an interesting mix, to say the least.
It’s never really in question that something is inherently wrong with Jenny’s father, or his housekeeper, Olga. Their words of warm welcome and gracious acceptance clash horribly with their secretive ways and perpetually frowning faces. The odd visit only continues, as her neglectful father constantly slips away on unknown errands and mysterious Olga continually feeds Jenny pills – which she swallows without hesitation – that the distant woman refers to as vitamins. (Pro-tip, kids: Never swallow crap some stranger calls “v-tah-mins”.) Other than that, Jenny is generally left to herself.
Obviously bored out of her freaking mind, Jenny visits the lake her dad is studying and comes across a young, blindfolded girl, who asks her if she can take her back to the orphanage. Of course, the orphanage comes across as more as a deteriorated insane asylum than a home for poor children. The pale, almost ethereal-like child introduces her to other sickly, pale children of varying ages, each with their own unique affliction. This is where the story starts to turn a bit more ‘gothic’, as Jenny often returns to visit with them and read stories and poetry to the rather morbid, yet capricious children. Add to this that Jenny never really questions what they tell her and goes along with what they ask without question, just adds to Jenny’s childlike naiveté and the films more dream-like atmosphere. Not that that won’t keep you from continuing to question Jenny’s decision-making skills. I’d blame it on the boarding school upbringing.
The issues that plague the film are all small, but add up enough to knock it down from what could have ended up becoming a modern classic. Some transitions are too abrupt, the characters could have greatly benefited from being fleshed out more and some set-ups are either never connected or don’t make a lick of sense. For instance, Jenny tells us that her British parents met in Tuscany, but that she was taken by her grandmother and raised in America at a boarding school. So then, why does she have such a tick, British accent? This is never explained and it’s often small instances such as that that keep the movie from being as great as it could be.
Overall, I was quite surprised by Neverlake. It has an interesting mix of genres that the viewer will either find fascinating or infuriating. I found the use of poetry quite interesting and felt it mixed well with the overall vibe of the film, but I could see how some viewers could find it pretentious. It has a few notable inconsistencies, but the visuals and the atmosphere do a lot to make up for it. If you’re looking for a relatively tame ghost story (it’s NR, but I’d stick it at a solid PG-13) and don’t mind that it focuses on teenagers, than you could do a lot worse than Neverlake.
In Dreams
Claire is a woman who has had strange, disjointed, prophetic dreams ever since she was a little girl. Up until recently, they’ve merely been a nuisance. But after a devastating personal tragedy, Claire’s dreams become more intense, even going so far as to break through while she’s awake. She’s convinced that the visions are leading her in the direction of a local, yet unknown, serial killer, but as the vision grow stronger and more detailed she finds herself involuntarily going down a very dark rabbit hole.
This one feels like more of a miss. Though I will say, Annette Bening pulls off an impressive performance as a woman thrown over the edge and diving head-first into the land of CooCooville. She is the films anchor, and with the films eventual disjointedness, that anchor was needed.
Even the late arrival of Robert Downey Jr. can’t seem to fully measure up to her (or his the actor playing his younger counterpart.) He tries to overtake the scenes he’s in by sheer force of will, but his character never seems dangerous enough for us to muster up the level of suspense the film is going for. Downey’s character was far more menacing when merely being hinted at. You can see Downey is trying (bless him), but you can tell it’s not going to hit the nerve they were going for and the blame for that should sit less on his shoulders and more squarely on the material he was given to work with. But at least he fared better than most of the other characters, who suffer from perpetual meh-ness to pure unlikability.
Plot-wise, the film chugs along serviceably…Right up until the last act. But this is a movie less concerned about story and more concerned about visuals and symbols, most of which are pulled from folk tales and children’s stories. A child’s production of “Snow White” isn’t merely a convenient plot device for a kidnapping, but a direct reference point. It’s the elements from this story - the color red, mirrors, abandoned children - that permeate the film. (Oh, and apples. Apples everywhere. Never have I seen such a wasted use of apples nor have they ever been so dangerous.) The only problem is, it takes a skilled hand to use symbols properly and sadly the filmmakers don’t seem to have had any such knowledgeable individuals on hand.
In Dreams is a weird mix of physiological thriller with elements of The Nightmare on Elm Street mixed in. And that’s part of where it flounders. If they had cut back on the more supernatural elements and reigned in their excessive apple use this could have probably been an interesting thriller. But it suffers from talented people trying too hard to do too much and spending too much time trying to be too artistically clever. Which is ultimately unfortunate. You can see the elements for something good are all present (or at least I see them), but they’re all woven together with crappy stitching thread that causes it all to fall apart in the end. If you’re a big fan of thrillers or films with a strong focus on visuals you might find something to enjoy here. Just don’t go in expecting too much. Unless you love Annette Bening, than this might actually be worth it for you.
Re: What was the last movie you've seen?
And TNT too. Believe me, I've been clamoring for Monstervision to come back since they hired me.ExedExes wrote:They played that all the time on TBS before they became comedy-oriented. A real underrated Wes Craven film. Heck, TBS did a lot of interesting horror movies back in the day.Pulsar_t wrote:People Under the Stairs
This weird little movie is a perfect time capsule for the cultural transition from the 80s into the 90s. There's even a small telly playing scenes of CNN's coverage of the Gulf War. Still watchable, and I say this after my first ever viewing
Re: What was the last movie you've seen?
with Joe Bob, right?
-
noiseredux
- Next-Gen
- Posts: 38148
- Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:09 pm
- Contact:
Re: What was the last movie you've seen?
Joe Bob Briggs ruled.
I loved all those shows man. Loved those post-Elvira trashy movie shows.
USA Up All Night was my favorite. My wife and I printed a list of USA Up All Night movies a decade ago and still working out way thru them over the years. Amazing stuff. Wish USA could get rights to release all those films unedited for content, but with the addition of their bumpers.
There was another show I've been trying to find for years that I remember showed movies in condensed like 30 min or 60 min show and used little digitized hearts to cover up nudity or gore. Don't know if it was USA, TNT, or what. It was early 90's. The one movie I remember it airing was Pumpkinhead but years of Googling has not helped me discover what show this was. Ugh.
I loved all those shows man. Loved those post-Elvira trashy movie shows.
USA Up All Night was my favorite. My wife and I printed a list of USA Up All Night movies a decade ago and still working out way thru them over the years. Amazing stuff. Wish USA could get rights to release all those films unedited for content, but with the addition of their bumpers.
There was another show I've been trying to find for years that I remember showed movies in condensed like 30 min or 60 min show and used little digitized hearts to cover up nudity or gore. Don't know if it was USA, TNT, or what. It was early 90's. The one movie I remember it airing was Pumpkinhead but years of Googling has not helped me discover what show this was. Ugh.
Re: What was the last movie you've seen?
Up All Night was pretty darn great. I remember watching that when I stayed up late in middle school. Saw a couple pretty interesting films that way, like This Island Earth, prior to the MST3K movie.