d_in_chi Reviews

The Last Exorcism (2010)

A good, down-to-earth exorcism film

[7/10 · 8 April 2014]

In The Last Exorcism, a documentary crew joins a highly charismatic Louisiana minister to film his last exorcism, a calling he inherited from his father. Having only used exorcism as a psychological and therapeutic tool, he admittedly employs illusions to "trick" the possessed and their families and give them peace of mind, but has come to a decision to renounce the act altogether. His last go-round won't be a simple matter of hocus pocus, as he finds himself dealing with a broken home, a psychotic girl, her deranged father, and other malignant elements.

Supernatural and demonic thrillers have a habit of coming up short if unique characters and situations aren't presented within the first 30 minutes and sustained throughout. Exorcism avoids this shortcoming with some outstanding performances from the lead character and the girl he is forced to try saving, and an interesting format. The first half of the film is highly entertaining, with the Reverend showing off his tricks of the trade while also making it clear that he's both a devoted man of God and a well grounded man of Reason, with nothing but good intentions. As a very likable character, he is a rarity in supernatural horror. I will admit I didn't know who Patrick Fabian is (despite his countless acting credits, I'm ignorant to television), but I am well aware now. He hits a home run in this role.

Nell is played perfectly as a believable home schooled daughter of a devout but deeply troubled Christian. Her character is not overly polished or sensational, which adds to the realism of the film.

The realism of the film is what makes the questionable ending work, and lays a good groundwork of suspense. Most of the activities involve using well informed reason to explain the girls' strange actions, even as the movie begins to go down darker and darker paths. This makes Exorcism an interesting exploration of taboo subjects, shame, and superstition. Most supernatural films instead use a tired and ineffective trope: the stock psychiatrist/therapist that the haunted/possessed is forced to see, without giving depth to the professional or the experience as a whole.

I do wish the end could have at least been explored more and toned down a bit (the fire thing was a bit over the top), if it wasn't going to be more in line with the approach taken with the rest of the story. However, it provides some shocks that are satisfying in spite of overindulgence.

Over all, a very good movie about realistic human experiences and demons as well. Highly recommended.

13: Game of Death (2006)

Creative, entertaining, hilarious

[10/10 · 7 April 2014]

If you were to put Speed and the Saw series into a blender, strain out the guns, explosions, and most of the gore, then add a dollop of Stephen Chow and garnish it with lemongrass, you might just get 13: Game of Death.

13 is a lot of things: wacky, sadistic, chaotic, frantic, absurd, and a lot of fun.

I have never watched a movie this versatile. It changes gears so quickly and frequently, covering dozens of bases: horror, thriller, comedy, drama, action, mystery, slapstick, satire, and everything in between.

While this makes it sound like a mess, it's far from it. The screenplay is brilliant, the directing is sharp, and though nothing is gradual and the story is herky-jerky, everything is paced perfectly.

Of course, the film mostly operates in the realms of horror and extreme dark comedy. I'm not talking the usual blend of sight gags and one liners piled into zombie movies. It's very similar to the American film Chop in how it juggles the 2; the main character is drawn into a sick, goofy situation, the absurdity and despair of which are used for an almost Marxian comic effect. But where Chop is more gruesome and confined, this movie is more story-based and wide open, which it uses to a greater advantage.

In addition to transnavigating types of fiction, it also tiptoes around all the landmines that destroy horror films: from the protagonist's method of coming to terms with what he's involved in, to the final piece of the puzzle being revealed.

13 is able to do this because it is constantly self aware and it demonstrates that gracefully. It knows when to be serious and when to crack a joke. More importantly, it knows how to do either. It also benefits from an excellent script, with an ending that's impossible to predict and even somewhat poignant (a tall task for horror).

I can't say enough good things about this movie, and there are no weak points other than a fairly poor CGI scene which can be forgiven. If you like off-the-wall movies and don't watch horror with strict expectations, this is the first thing I'd recommend to you.

Entity (2012)

Derailed by a bad accent and boring characters

[3/10 · 7 April 2014]

Entity gets off on a very bad foot due to, of all things, a character with the worst fake Russian accent I've ever heard. My first thought was Jamie Lee Curtis' "German" accent (Swedish due to ignorance) in the train scene in Trading Places. This is even worse. That was meant to be funny, this isn't. "Yuri" sounds more like a German doing a bad Scottish accent. Turns out the actor who played him is a German raised in Serbia.

If you can't find someone with a Russian accent, why set the film in Russia? They could have easily set this in Eastern Germany and claimed that the disappearances occurred in the DDR years. Or they could have rewritten the script so that our "Russian" was born in the UK of Russian parents and moved back to the motherland (this would also have explained his predilection for contacting a British TV show). Something, anything. Even using a guy with a straight-up English accent saying his name is Dmitri and he lives in Russia would have been a better choice.

Although this may seem minor, it's not. I'd liken it to repeatedly seeing a gaffer in the background, or really bad CGI. It's either an easy fix or a poor production choice. At first it's funny, but each time Ivan speaks it makes it more difficult to take any of this seriously, leaving the makers of the film the only ones doing so; a fatal flaw in horror.

This is not the only problem. The rest of the characters are dull and interchangeable; an hour in I didn't know which of the crew was who and I didn't care. I even couldn't remember Igor's name - or Boris, Sergei, whatever.

They all read their lines like an automated phone message. I understand they're a paranormal TV show crew, but they act hardly shocked once shockingly spooky things begin happening, as if they've been on cases just like this before. Even when in grave danger, they're merely reading their lines, only displaying distress when they themselves are attacked.

This idea has been done before. Some will criticize on that alone, but not me. However, you should be informed about what's been done with it before you do it. Where Grave Encounters succeeds (almost everything), this film fails. GE gave depth to its characters, making them lifelike and interesting. It managed to both have a lot of fun and extract terror from the idea of ghost hunters biting off far more than they can chew. GE is also downright frightening despite not having the advantage of switching POV that Entity has. Opportunities to scare are squandered by keeping the action distant and most of the ghosts only visible to the psychic.

In short, a mandatory viewing of GE for the filmmakers would have been advised. While they're at it, The Hunt for Red October also may have helped them figure out how to handle the Russian accent problem.

I stopped keeping track of the story once Vladimir started talking about his ex-girlfriend. Yes, I knew he "vuz luking fod'r sumting" early on so I figured it was a loved one. Whether he found her or not, I don't know, but Nikolai met some kind of ghost. Losing track of the plot didn't matter because there really isn't one. They walk around in a building and there's spirits of some kind. That's all you need to know.

The film's greatest strength is the ability to keep a pretty tense atmosphere... although I wanted it to end, I found myself watching all the way through. Aside from that, some of the ghostly images are scary.

Totally disposable supernatural horror that belongs in $1 bargain bins and free On Demand.

Lake Mungo (2008)

zzz... zzz... Why not just make an actual documentary?

[3/10 · 7 April 2014]

Lake Mungo is a fairly well crafted film that doesn't live up to its potential. How hard is it to find real people who claim to have a real life ghost story and "evidence" to back it up? Not very. Why then, make a ghost story mockumentary that grounds itself so close to reality and lacks the punch that fiction is capable of delivering?

I'm not saying that this movie would have been better with tons of unrealistic ghost footage and spooky events. Actually, one of the film's biggest mistakes is that it unknowingly misuses the concept of hoaxing as an unsuccessful plot twist which only erases the mood built to that point. Allowing the viewer to use their discretion and imagination with the possibility of a hoax all throughout could have made stretched the boundaries of reality and made this movie creepy successful. Instead, that idea is thrown aside early on, not adding anything but a speed bump in the story and a needless distraction.

The side story involving the neighbors is totally pointless and even off-putting. This was yet another speed bump in the story and serves only to fatten up the script. Once again, the tedious efforts to provide a realistic feel to the "documentary" have a mostly negative impact.

Most real documentaries have far more interesting characters than these; most also have questionable characters that take the documentary to another level. Lake Mungo could have benefited from taking this path.

There are some execution mistakes here and there that also render the atmosphere harmless... such as the poor, grainy camera phone footage at the camp. A hand-held camera being present could have made the "big scare" several orders of magnitude bigger. A grainy 2005 cell phone shot just doesn't work well as "found footage."

Which brings me back to my first point... quite simply, cable networks' haunted house documentaries and ghost hunting shows are far scarier, and give you actual, real people, or at the very least, the "cream of the crop" of hoaxers.

Last but definitely not least, I felt insulted by the shots provided during the closing credits, and wasn't going to bother letting them all play out (I assume there were more). It makes no sense to break the strictly realistic documentary format for the credits, and only steals scares from the actual movie.

I hate to slag on a film that's well made and has good intentions, but I would rather have just watched an episode of Ghost Adventures.

Inkubus (2011)

Just plain bad

[3/10 · 7 April 2014]

Inkubus is quite simply a bad movie.

There are a few bright spots:

The setting is pretty terrifying thanks to solid directing and camera-work, but it serves as only a backdrop, overshadowed by a cornball story.

Robert Englund is absolutely awesome, but the performance (very believable for a demon) is totally wasted, surrounded by a horrendous supporting cast.

From the get-go, we're shown exactly how the A plot will unfold, and it's obvious that Inkubus is invincible. This adds up to a one-sided affair without a hint of suspense. Sadly, this means the only thing that could have improved this movie is more gore, and more deaths. The only route given is for the film to expand on a spooky back story, which it doesn't do satisfyingly.

Still, I'd actually recommend this for fans of Englund, or people who are interested in the demonic. There is entertainment value here... unfortunately it's all delivered under the guise of having a story. I would have much preferred to just watch Englund doing an 80 minute monologue as a demon.

Julia's Eyes (2010)

An enjoyable, highly unpredictable thriller

[7/10 · 6 April 2014]

A respectable blend of drama and horror, using strengths of both but also succumbing occasionally to the weaknesses.

Suspense is present from the very beginning, building to an exciting and unexpected climax, unfortunately falling a bit flat afterward. In fact, the last 30 seconds of the film somewhat blemish the drama of the story as a whole, mostly because the ending touches on a relationship that was hardly explored and not at all significant through the rest of the film, partly because of the focus on the very thing that makes this movie good: the constant twists and turns in the story. This also leads to some ideas that are passable but don't make nearly as much sense as they're supposed to; particularly the whole "people who aren't seen"/"There was no man with her (Sara)"/"Don't look at me!" motif. I still don't get it, but it has little impact on the story anyway.

I believe the entirety of the story could have used some fine tuning, and run time could have been trimmed by 10 to 15 minutes... But overall it's engaging, well acted, and sets an excellent and fitting mood visually. Thrillers that can't project the protagonist's experience to the viewer fail horribly... this movie does an outstanding job providing a sense of confinement that fits the title character's world, and this is where its greatest strength lies.

Although character relationships are a bit thin and suspense doesn't hit many high notes, this is a fairly exciting thrill ride and a good effort all around. One last thing, I would recommend watching it without distraction... the mood is more visual and in the flow of the story than it is intellectual or suspenseful, and it's easy to lose interest if you step away for a few minutes.

What Lies Beneath (2000)

The scariest thing about this movie is that it required 130 minutes and $100mil

[2/10 · 6 April 2014]

I had been putting off watching this movie for years... 2+ hours, 2 A- list actors and 1 big budget are the perfect recipe for disappointing horror and/or thrillers.

I eventually got around to it, but couldn't get around to finishing it. Admittedly, I skipped through much of the second hour after one hour without scares, thrills, suspense, or even much in the way of mood.

The characters and the actors playing them all seem tired. For the first 30 minutes we're treated to lots of day-to-day conversation and people just hanging out. Harrison Ford is particularly disappointing, a shell of himself, and seems as bored with the story as I was. Michelle Pfeiffer tries to breathe life into this disaster, but cookie cutter "Eek! A ghost!" performances can be had for many millions less. Outside of the stars there is no talent and very little dialogue beyond small talk.

As for the ghost... someone wearing a white bed sheet with eye-holes would have been more frightening.

Any horror script that contains a scene, 40 minutes in, beginning with a Ouija board and ending with a fake-out scare (Oh, it's just the dog!) is not worthy of 40 minutes of my time, let alone 130. And of course, such a script will also contain the "You're Crazy!"/"Am I crazy?"/"I swear I'm not crazy!" sequence, complete with psychiatrist, shocked onlookers, angry spouse, etc., and last but not least, the canned, mainstream ghost story movie ending... a switcheroo here, some vengeance there, a surprise bad guy, blah blah blah.

[REC] 3: Genesis (2012)

One word: Brilliant!

[9/10 · 6 April 2014]

Possibly the most underrated horror movie ever, which suffers because of its name.

To preface, Rec is my favorite horror movie of all time and Rec 2 is in my Top 20. I'm a horror fan that loves the supernatural and demons, found footage, and claustrophobic settings. I despise zombie movies; to me they are overplayed, one dimensional, inherently unscary, and rarely funny when they turn to comedy. Why zombies are in fashion these days is beyond me.

Yet I love Rec 3; at the surface, a zombie movie, with only two scenes (the mirror shot and the quarantine) that imply direct relation to Rec/Rec 2.

This is an extreme case where enjoyment of a movie depends on expectations and when it's watched. And this has nothing to do with hearing good things and being let down, or not being in the right mood.

Rec 3 is best watched either as a stand alone movie, or ironically, as part of a Rec marathon. I would assume it will be even more fulfilling this way when Rec 4 is out, as an intermission and drastic change of pace. Some who are critical of this movie may be unaware that this was done with one half of the directing team responsible for the first 2, with the other half directing Rec 4.

Maintaining a solid horror franchise is near impossible, and Rec 3 refuses to decide on the better of 2 predictable and risky paths: 1) go back into the apartment with cameras, again, or 2) leave the apartment for a 28 Days Later/The Exorcist mash-up (with the next logical step being a lame prequel); eschewing inertia entirely and instead giving us a meaningful version of ((Any 2000s/10s Zombie Movie)), except actually funny, and with a demonic twist. Had the serious tone been retained and the existing template copied, the series would simply grow tired, as happened with Paranormal Activity 3 and 4.

Found footage is more effective with fewer cameras, and repetition is a hard sell, while abandoning found footage compromises atmosphere. Rec 2, while great, was already stumbling in this right, with the priest all but giving a symposium on the situation (needed to advance the story, but an annoying cop out), the helmet cams (video gamey, with graphs and readings, naturally), and the kids' entry (necessary demon fodder but a weak way to introduce more hand-held footage).

Part of Rec 3's charm is solving this problem with a clever bait-and-switch. Though the series is thrown completely into left field, it manages to stay on topic at the deeper level, and you can sense the flavor that Paco Plaza must have contributed prior. If viewed with the nuances and themes of Rec and Rec 2 fresh in mind, you will even find it actually fits in perfectly. Rec 3 is an exploration of what the priest said in Rec 2: (to paraphrase) imagine a world in which you may be forced to "kill" your own loved ones for the greater good.

Very few horror films can play on melodramatic anticipations this well, both making you laugh and satisfying you logically. If you've ever yelled "Arm yourself, you idiot!" at a movie character, this movie is worth it for the armor scene alone. And John Sponge hilariously transcends the trope of horror comic relief in both his introduction and demise. Not to say that it's all metahorror and laughs... while the scare factor is way down, it carries suspense and thrills in spades, mainly utilizing action instead of creepy settings. Still, the agents are there to seal you in again (though briefly), providing an extra dimension of terror. Rec 3 even successfully pulls off a trick that usually ruins any horror film that attempts it: carrying and resolving a love story.

If you want to see more people being thrown into the quarantined apartment building and rehashing the plot of 1 and 2 while the world goes around them, and you aren't in the mood to relax and have a little fun, watch Quarantine. If you can only enjoy zombie movies that bow to Romero, hit you over the head with the concept, copy/paste the lumbering, groaning, mangled corpses, and employ the same tired sight gags, watch ((Any 2000s/10s Zombie Movie)).

And if you don't get excited seeing Leticia Dolera brandish a chainsaw to alter her dress and mow down the possessed-walking-dead (something she couldn't have done while toting a video camera), something is terribly wrong with you.

My only complaint is that the wedding sequence could have been cut shorter and presents a couple of B plots that, while adding meat to the story and being resolved, are underdeveloped and therefore unnecessary.

Rec 3 should have turned out as bad as everyone says it is, but it didn't. A brilliantly executed film on all levels. At the very least, fans of Rec are advised to treat this as a sacrifice bunt to advance the series.

Europa Report (2013)

An uninteresting failure as both found footage and sci-fi thriller

[2/10 · 6 April 2014]

This film ruins what is a very promising premise with undeveloped characters, a terrible storyline, bad script, poor directional choices, and complete lack of suspense and thrills.

The result is nothing more than found footage sci-fi mad libs. To illustrate how weak the screenplay is, I can sum up the entire plot as follows, without spoiling anything:

1. Space crew is sent to a moon of Jupiter to look for signs of life. 2. Hints are given early on that the mission wasn't a success. 3. Spacecraft travels the distance from here to there. 4. Something goes wrong at the halfway mark, but nothing exciting. 5. They reach their destination with fatal results. 6. For some reason this is all pieced together as "found footage."

Fill in your own details. The ones they give don't matter.

Character development is practically nonexistent. Only one of the crew members was given any color, but gets killed off halfway through. Everyone else is given 2 or 3 lines that illustrate their "personality," otherwise they just speak faux astronaut jargon. Even the antagonists, both psychological and actual, are lazily tossed in as required. This makes it impossible for me to care what happens at all, and there are no shocks or surprises so as to generate the slightest peripheral interest. I found myself wanting the craft to just blow up halfway there.

What's perhaps most puzzling is the choice to use the format of found footage. The weak story and uninspired directing/editing could have been done a bit more justice if it used the standard space sci-fi thriller template (Alien), which may have added a more suspenseful and chilling atmosphere, something not present here.

In my opinion, the effect of found footage is greatly diminished when countless cameras are used or when the characters come off as people acting. At times it even seems like the actors didn't know what type of movie they were in, since they overact and are not believable in terms of constant-running, candid footage. The film as a whole is interspersed with non-found footage pieces which are total garbage and detract from the tension. The use of digital readings and watermarks is also pointless and annoying.

Found footage gets a bad rap from movies that either reenact other found footage, or overcomplicate it. This is a perfect example of overcomplication.

There are several careless gaffes (of sort) throughout: many scenes look as though they are shot "normally," such as the repair attempt; the news footage (complete with screen crawls... apparently raw NASA footage is easier to obtain than raw CNN footage) looks dated even by 2013 standards, with this taking place well into the future; all of the action, particularly the final scene, just happen, by sheer luck, to have a perfect, dead-on shot of the subject. Again, why bother with found footage if you can't reap its benefits? And who would have bothered to edit all this together in the fictional universe, and for what audience? Granted, most found footage doesn't address this, but is also not so painstakingly produced as to raise the question in the first place.

It's difficult to care or be engaged when everything looks exactly like what it is: a handful of unremarkable actors hanging out in a low budget spacecraft set and reading their lines.

One of the worst films I've ever seen from an execution standpoint, to the point I'm truly surprised that I finished watching.

Red Lights (2012)

More unintentionally meta than unintentionally comical

[2/10 · 22 March 2014]

Most times, a very good film will leave me pondering it well into the next day with key scenes replaying in my mind.

Apparently a certain type of bad film can affect me the same way. 12 hours and a full night's sleep after the closing strains of "HOW DID YOU DO THAT!!??," (side note: please stick a fork in De Niro) I find myself reeling and puzzled to the point of signing up to write my first ever film review for "Red Lights."

"How did you do that?" is the question on my mind for several people (both those involved in the movie and those who have watched it and enjoyed it); perhaps even more for the film itself... How did the screenplay make it through the entire process? How did this film earn such a high rating on IMDb? How has this film captured my attention so strongly without being enjoyable?

The film has a strong start and an interesting premise but the screenplay may well be a product of that game where everybody adds a sentence to a story. It progressively becomes sillier and more incongruent, ignorant to its own content, trying to outwit me without being clever. The story is full of unnecessary, tangential, malformed bits of plot that treat the viewer like an idiot to the point of annoyance.

Even if I were to accept that spoonbenders can have the same celebrity status as Michael Jackson, and that some university funds two departments dedicated to the paranormal; one to prove and one to debunk, and that there could be some hyperagressive skeptics who are as bent out of shape as that table of spoons in the lab, and that a "plant" can be part of a "controlled study" even with a hack scientist, and that sinks and toilet bowls break like glass, that faith healing is illegal if proved to be fake, and that one scientist signing one study has the gravity of the President signing a piece of legislation...

Even if I accept all that and dozens of other things both impossible and implausible within the world presented in this film, I am made to feel like someone doesn't think I'm paying attention, or worse yet, that I keep leaving the room and walking back and asking someone what just happened, because the characters act like an irritating friend that is constantly explaining what just happened. This is especially annoying when any half intelligent person should be two steps ahead throughout the entire film... "He's not really blind," "Throw something at him to prove he isn't blind," "I bet the watch has something to do with the test results," etc.

In fact, the entire end of the movie is an explanation of the movie that nobody needed. Why can't we take "How did you do that?" and move on? Murphy's character could have been killed by falling debris in the arena full of tens of thousands of spoonbender fans (none who bothered to run when the place was collapsing), therefore unable to deliver his final monologue, and the film would have been just as effective at bringing closure... to the A plot that is. I still don't know why we needed the automatic painting scene, or why Murphy's and Olsen's characters live in the lab, or why they had romantic ties at all, or who killed Matheson, or what the point of the comatose son is. Perhaps the comatose son can return in a sequel for an epic psychic battle against Buckley (who, being responsible for "everything," must have killed Matheson; motive for revenge). I would recommend a montage where the Junior Matheson is trained by Silver and has some kind of astral projection superpower learned while in coma. De Niro will likely be available again.

As for Silver's dialogue... I wish DeNiro's character had been written as a real mute instead of a fake blind man.

I could write an entire volume on the story's logical, narrative, and technical flaws and have just started doing so, against my own wishes (perhaps next my phone will ring with nobody on the other end and a random tough is awaiting me in the bathroom). It has them all in spades.

To the point of my summary, it's not one of those films that's so-bad- it's-good/funny. If there were a spoonbending superstar genre of film outside of this, the Wayans brothers could have made very minor tweaks to this script and had a film of their own. But it's the durgey score, serious tone of the actors, and "what's-around-the-corner?" cinematography that make this thing seem pretentious and trite. The fact that this movie seems to be either hated or kind-of-liked raises an interesting question in my mind about what makes people enjoy a movie. Is it possible that the score, tone, seriousness, and camera-work, along with a "twist" of an ending are enough for some? I mean no offense to those that like this movie, but it could have a lot to say about film as genre and how it's received.

If this film has done anything, it's left me feeling unnecessarily enraged and wrapped up with trivial nonsense, when I should just click 1 Star, say I don't subscribe to it, and let everyone else enjoy it as they will. In this, I relate strongly to the movie's protagonist. This is quite an impressive trick, and enough to earn the film an extra star in my review.

If you want to see a film that touches on similar subject matter and premise but doesn't employ armies of scientists, pointless rage, and public fueds between believers and nonbelievers, watch "The Skeptic." That film exists in a (more) normal world, and is driven by good characters and a tight story, not sensationalism and Shyamalanian diversions.

Exam (2009)

A fun thriller that falls apart at the end

[6/10 · 22 March 2014]

I am a huge fan of the "Strangers Locked in a Room" subgenre, and I love films shot in real time, so this movie got my juices rolling from the get-go.

We're presented with a rather absurd situation, but not in an overly corny way: eight job applicants are placed in a room for an "exam" of sorts, presented with a puzzle for which there seems to be no solution and given 80 minutes for one of them to step up and earn the job. Most of the action takes place in real time as the clock winds down to 0.

I don't believe I'm spoiling anything by saying I spotted the answer before the clock started, having been presented this very same problem by a crafty teacher in the second grade, but I still had my doubts throughout, and the film is nonetheless clever and crafty in its own right, and being in suspense of the ending matters little. Much like another real time film, "Rope," dialog and personalities carry the piece, although in that film you're "in the know" from the first few seconds.

Our ten characters are, with a couple of exceptions ("Brunette" is far too hammy and "Dark" reminds me of a third rate CSI scientist), very well acted, and the film runs as an entertaining piece of pure theater. There's little to summarize about the plot; as you may well guess, within minutes the confined begin to run through all the typical stages of the locked-in-a-room syndrome, beginning with confusion and ending with near-chaos.

This film had all the makings to be an absolute home run, but the thrills and suspense that it builds, very well I might add, are kicked to the side for a softball ending. It touches on horror slightly at one point, not quite going all the way, easing into the finish like a passenger jet descending from cruising altitude to landing speed. In a way, I felt kind of like you do when you finish a test and have 15 minutes to spare... you begin to get slightly dozy.

Without the condemnation aspect seen in films like "Saw" or "9 Dead," (this is merely a job, for crying out loud), it's difficult to generate extreme thrills, and the somewhat lazy plot device about the unnamed disease doesn't help much. I'm also not quite sure the writer of the story knew how they wanted to end it, or at least they didn't have the creative inspiration to finish as they did to start. They may have even had a change of heart or experienced some warm and fuzzy life happenings while finishing up the screenplay. But I don't blame them... finding a creative and thrilling ending and maintaining the early momentum seems near impossible.

Nonetheless, the first 75 or so minutes feels like 20 and overall the film will not let you down. I'd grade this "Exam" with a B-.

Viva Cuba (2005)

A tremendous work of heart that transcends borders, cultures and politics

[7/10 · 22 March 2014]

By title, and by the knowledge of where this movie was produced, many who watch movies might be turned off, or suspect of the film's quality at best. The first Cuban film I've seen, I went in with expectations that were shattered by a, dare I say, cute and heartwarming tale of friendship and the human spirit. I know that people are people no matter where they live, and a liberal at heart. Even for me, this is the last place I would have expected to look for such a story, and one of the last things I would expect to result in a few tears.

Immediately, the story disarms us of political prejudice, with a scene of boys, including Jorgito, one of two protagonists, playing the Cuban version of Cowboys and Indians in the street. They happen upon a girl of the same age, Malu, and we see Jorgito and Malu having the first of their several arguments, those reminiscent of old married couples. Malu wants to play Queen of Spain to which Jorgito objects, setting up the dichotomous relationship we learn of with their families, and I would assume countless more in Cuba.

Jorgito's and Malu's relationship is shown developing throughout the first act, something between childish/flirty teasing and puppy love. Antagonism is introduced when Malu's mother plans to marry and leave the country, resulting in one of the most touching scenes in any movie, let alone one for children, with both children sitting on a roof overlooking Havana, discussing the situation. By the time we see Malu turning, unseen, to face Jorgito, borders are nonexistent. Friendship is the great equalizer. I was Jorgito and have always been.

The two run away and set out on a journey from Havana to southeast Cuba, to find Malu's father and prevent him from signing the paperwork that would allow Malu to leave Cuba. The scenes comparing/contrasting their lifestyles and routines in packing and in preparing "for school" that morning are the funniest part of the film, which isn't short on good laughs throughout.

The emotion invoked by "Viva Cuba" and the universality of feeling expressed in the dialog ("When I grow up I want to be in charge; to do what I want." and "If I were in charge I would let kids do what they want.") within the story's context is tactfully darling. In terms of story, "Viva Cuba" stands up to American children's films about friendship, such as "Up" and "Wall-E," even more true and raw from the protagonists' perspective (quite literally, as the camera angles are set low and we are presented with a few glimpses into their imaginations), as this film almost completely eschews the realities of the adult/real world until they come crashing (lightly) down at the ending with the friends' bond unaffected.

The movie takes you through Cuba, but does not make you feel like you or the characters are under an iron thumb or not free. It doesn't promote or glorify the country either. With a rare backdrop, it presents a personal struggle against confinements and misfortunes that are commonly experienced the world over.

Escape from Alcatraz (1979)

Subtly Suspenseful Prison Film

[8/10 · 22 March 2014]

Much like some of the best horror/thriller films rely on what you don't see, "Escape from Alcatraz" engages with suspense that almost never exists, and does so to great effect.

Eastwood turns in his standard Eastwood performance as Frank Morris, an unassuming and intelligent prisoner whose most heinous criminal acts seem to be breaking out of prisons, for which he is sent to the "inescapable" Alcatraz. Needless to say, he plots to escape (of course, Eastwood would do this no matter what character he's playing), with the help of a few prisoners he befriends, two of whom he knows from a stint in a Georgia prison and followed his coattails to the Rock.

By "standard Eastwood" I mean that he plays the character like an expert violinist, but at any moment you know he could make you wet your pants just by asking if you feel lucky; one of few actors (Pesci, Spacey) that can masterfully exist simultaneously as actor and character. Real life Frank Morris likely did not have the intimidating presence of Eastwood, but no guns are drawn or staredowns initiated, so we stick to story but are able to romanticize it ourselves.

All the standard prison film tropes (rape, racism, the elderly prisoner) are handled beautifully to establish the prison mood while furthering the story and not hindering the pacing of the movie. All but a few prison movies would be improved by copying and pasting this film's use of the tropes into their own overarching stories.

If this film were made today, even with an equally outstanding cast, I fear it would likely fall victim to being forced over the top with superfluous "Gotcha!" scenes, choreographed group fights, sharks, bad weather, maybe a shark/weather hybrid, and so forth. This is not a film that will have you on the edge of your seat or excite you at any time, and that's a good thing. The story is executed realistically, forcing you to generate far more suspense in your mind than is given on screen, which is very minimal and peaks during a routine cell check, with the warden opening the case of Frank's accordion while sitting inches away from the hole in the cell wall.

The subtlety may be a bit over the top itself (even for real life), as the actual escape left me generating numerous near-capture scenarios in my head, making the finale somewhat anticlimactic. Though the setting, characters and story were portrayed so well that it didn't matter much, and the film's (and real life's) final question leaves the right type of open end that gives ample suspense.

This film doesn't blow you away but it is gripping and highly enjoyable. I have a pessimistic/critical nature and make a habit of looking for things I don't like in books, movies, etc. I know I've watched a very good movie when the best I can come up with is "I wish there were one more scene with the warden" or "Why wouldn't Morris introduce himself unless asked his name?" And neither of those really matter.

Unless you count "Cuckoo's Nest," this is my favorite prison movie.