200 Days...
So I've now finished 200 days, over halfway done. Watching movies have become second nature to me by now, but writing is still an arduous task and I'm not sure if I'm getting any better at it. There were a couple movies I absolutely hated writing for because I couldn't think of anything to write about. With my crazy sleeping schedule I've often had to watch movies when I got home at like 5:00 am dead tired, making the writing even worse. Reading back on some of the posts, I could definitely tell which ones I just sort of half-assed. When I started there was an endless supply of movies to watch but now the really good ones I want to see are getting fewer and further between. There were a couple nights where I was just scrolling through Netflix and nothing looked appealing at all and have had to watch a couple movies I didn't care about at all. I really hate wasting days on useless movies but it's going to be inevitable.
I have difficult challenge coming up. I'm going on a two week Mediterranean cruise with my family next week where it's unlikely I'm going to have access to the Internet on a daily basis. I'm going to download a bunch of movies to bring with me and type up the write-ups offline, posting them whenever I get the chance to. What's probably going to end up happening is just posting them all at once I get back. So when you see I haven't been updating the blog, it's not because I quit!
So here is a brief breakdown on what I've been watching the past 100 days (including two bonus movies).
By decade:
2010: 25
2000: 14
1990: 8
1980: 18
1970: 9
1960: 4
1950: 13
1940: 8
1930: 1
1920: 2
Now by grade:
A 19
A- 19
B+ 19
B 20
B- 9
C+ 9
C 3
C- 1
D+ 1
D 1
D- 1
F 0
It's pretty evenly distributed at the top. I'm happy that I'm still finding good movies to watch, thankfully I have yet to give out an F. It could be that I'm too easy as a critic though. I might just decide to watch a movie universally accepted as horrible and see if it's bad enough to completely flunk.
Here's a list of the 19 A's I've given out in the past 100 days. Obviously if I had to recommend a movie from the ones I've watched, I'd start here.
Blow Out, Body Heat, Drive, Fargo, Hanna, Heavenly Creatures, Last Train Home, The Music Room, Paths of Glory, Ponyo, Psycho, Scarface, sex, lies, and videotape, Sin Nombre, Still Walking, Stranger Than Paradise, Sweet Smell of Success, Touch of Evil, Young Frankenstein
If I had to choose just one of these movies I think I'd have to pick Still Walking. It may or may not be the best of the bunch but it is certainly the movie that affected me the most.
Oh, here's a link to my 100 day post.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Day 200 - Broadcast News
Broadcast News (1987) directed by James L. Brooks
At the center of Broadcast News is a love triangle of sorts, but the one thing that these characters love more than anything is their work, often at the expense of the relationships between each other. We are introduced to the three characters as kids in humorous bits that reveal the type of people they will become. There is Tom Grunick, who is charming and good looking, but also self admittedly not that bright. He is moving from local news to the big time, syndicated network news where the other two characters are already established. Aaron Altman is the opposite of Tom, very intelligent and a sharp reporter but not particularly attractive, thus never really getting a chance at lead anchor. His best friend who he is secretly in love with is Jane Craig, an incredibly talented and driven writer-producer. Jane and Aaron share a strong bond based on their intellectual compatibility and respect for good reporting; both are appalled by the network's hiring of Tom, whose very presence lowers the high standards they expect from the news. Yet much to Aaron's chagrin and Jane's surprise, she is attracted to Tom.
What is interesting is that the love triangle angle isn't like what you'd really imagine it, at least as far as movies go. The romance between Jane and Tom sort of happens but ultimately work (and a little bit of Aaron) gets in the way; the real relationships in their lives are with their careers. There is a great deal of overlap between personal and professional lives until you realize there is no real difference between the two with these characters. The ultimate question for Jane regarding Tom is can you really be with someone you don't respect? But then why hasn't Jane and Aaron ever gotten together when they are so seemingly compatible? I suppose the flip side to the argument would be can you ever be with someone who you're not attracted to? Or is it that they respect each other so much professionally that they don't want to mess things up? As is the case with most love triangles, Jane's ideal mate would be a combination of the two men, Aaron's intelligence and professionalism with Tom's handsome looks and charm. The film doesn't have the typical Hollywood ending you would expect but a rather realistic one as far as I'm concerned. It probably isn't a crowd pleaser, but makes the most sense for all the characters involved and what would probably actually happen in real life.
The best moments of the film are actually in the newsroom. It was fascinating to watch them put the news together behind the scenes. My favorite scene is when Tom gets his first chance at anchoring a big story with Jane giving him instructions in his earpiece. The scene is so tightly shot and tense I was genuinely nervous for Tom and am as relieved as he is when he nails it. Expanding on the personal-professional relationship, this moment is actually the most intimate that Tom and Jane will share; he compares the back and forth rhythm of the moment to sex.
I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the movie. I could immediately recognize that I just saw something quite good, but exactly how good? It is a well written film that is occasionally quite funny and always interesting. It might be the tone of the ending that has thrown me a little off in judging it, but it's not as if I disliked how it ended or anything. It just didn't seem like a normal way to end things, which isn't necessarily even a bad thing, just different.
Grade: B+
At the center of Broadcast News is a love triangle of sorts, but the one thing that these characters love more than anything is their work, often at the expense of the relationships between each other. We are introduced to the three characters as kids in humorous bits that reveal the type of people they will become. There is Tom Grunick, who is charming and good looking, but also self admittedly not that bright. He is moving from local news to the big time, syndicated network news where the other two characters are already established. Aaron Altman is the opposite of Tom, very intelligent and a sharp reporter but not particularly attractive, thus never really getting a chance at lead anchor. His best friend who he is secretly in love with is Jane Craig, an incredibly talented and driven writer-producer. Jane and Aaron share a strong bond based on their intellectual compatibility and respect for good reporting; both are appalled by the network's hiring of Tom, whose very presence lowers the high standards they expect from the news. Yet much to Aaron's chagrin and Jane's surprise, she is attracted to Tom.
What is interesting is that the love triangle angle isn't like what you'd really imagine it, at least as far as movies go. The romance between Jane and Tom sort of happens but ultimately work (and a little bit of Aaron) gets in the way; the real relationships in their lives are with their careers. There is a great deal of overlap between personal and professional lives until you realize there is no real difference between the two with these characters. The ultimate question for Jane regarding Tom is can you really be with someone you don't respect? But then why hasn't Jane and Aaron ever gotten together when they are so seemingly compatible? I suppose the flip side to the argument would be can you ever be with someone who you're not attracted to? Or is it that they respect each other so much professionally that they don't want to mess things up? As is the case with most love triangles, Jane's ideal mate would be a combination of the two men, Aaron's intelligence and professionalism with Tom's handsome looks and charm. The film doesn't have the typical Hollywood ending you would expect but a rather realistic one as far as I'm concerned. It probably isn't a crowd pleaser, but makes the most sense for all the characters involved and what would probably actually happen in real life.
The best moments of the film are actually in the newsroom. It was fascinating to watch them put the news together behind the scenes. My favorite scene is when Tom gets his first chance at anchoring a big story with Jane giving him instructions in his earpiece. The scene is so tightly shot and tense I was genuinely nervous for Tom and am as relieved as he is when he nails it. Expanding on the personal-professional relationship, this moment is actually the most intimate that Tom and Jane will share; he compares the back and forth rhythm of the moment to sex.
I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the movie. I could immediately recognize that I just saw something quite good, but exactly how good? It is a well written film that is occasionally quite funny and always interesting. It might be the tone of the ending that has thrown me a little off in judging it, but it's not as if I disliked how it ended or anything. It just didn't seem like a normal way to end things, which isn't necessarily even a bad thing, just different.
Grade: B+
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Day 199 - sex, lies and videotape
sex, lies and videotape (1989) directed by Steven Soderbergh
Sexuality doesn't have to be about showing skin or even about the act of sex itself. Sometimes just talking about it can be enough and often times more satisfying and rewarding than the physical sensation. The seduction of words, the sharing of your most personal and intimate secrets, baring yourself completely from the inside can prove far more powerful as shown in sex, lies and videotape.
Ann is a sexually repressed woman who blushes and laughs nervously whenever the topic of sex is brought up. She is married to John who is having an affair with her sister Cynthia, who is Ann's polar opposite. John's old college friend Graham comes to visit and his very presence stirs things up for everybody.
One day when Ann and Graham are having lunch, Ann reveals to him "I think sex is overrated." Graham responds by saying that he is impotent and thus hasn't had much sex himself either. That isn't to say he is not sexual, however. The only way he can get off is by videotaping women talking about sex. When Ann notices his vast videotape collection with women's names on them, he tells her and she freaks out. But is she more freaked out by Graham's perversions or by her own realization that she could never be one of the subjects on the tapes?
Cynthia has a different reaction to the tapes and readily agrees to be recorded, much to the disgust of John and Ann. She understands the implication of the tapes, the power of the secrets they hold and to confessing her inner most thoughts. It is an erotically charged scene with no skin or physical contact; they just talk and it is hot.
The film's relationships progress the way you'd expect them to. Ann and John have their problems and John and Cynthia's affair is nothing more than that, but the key relationship as we knew it would be from the beginning is between Ann and Graham. Ann goes to him to be taped and the session proves to have a greater effect on Graham than her. The two complicated characters try to make sense of why they are the way they are. The scene is handled with great care, nothing too fancy, just them taking it out and it works. The whole film just worked for me as I was totally engrossed from start to finish.
A lot of times when I watch movies I will occasionally check my phone or pop up a web page to look at, but I didn't even notice the text messages I missed because I was so focused on the film. Really good movie.
Apparently Steven Soderbergh's sex, lies and videotape was somewhat of a landmark for independent American cinema as it brought attention to rising American director-writers Spike Lee, Quentin Tarantino, Kevin Smith and the Coen Brothers.
Grade: A
Sexuality doesn't have to be about showing skin or even about the act of sex itself. Sometimes just talking about it can be enough and often times more satisfying and rewarding than the physical sensation. The seduction of words, the sharing of your most personal and intimate secrets, baring yourself completely from the inside can prove far more powerful as shown in sex, lies and videotape.
Ann is a sexually repressed woman who blushes and laughs nervously whenever the topic of sex is brought up. She is married to John who is having an affair with her sister Cynthia, who is Ann's polar opposite. John's old college friend Graham comes to visit and his very presence stirs things up for everybody.
One day when Ann and Graham are having lunch, Ann reveals to him "I think sex is overrated." Graham responds by saying that he is impotent and thus hasn't had much sex himself either. That isn't to say he is not sexual, however. The only way he can get off is by videotaping women talking about sex. When Ann notices his vast videotape collection with women's names on them, he tells her and she freaks out. But is she more freaked out by Graham's perversions or by her own realization that she could never be one of the subjects on the tapes?
Cynthia has a different reaction to the tapes and readily agrees to be recorded, much to the disgust of John and Ann. She understands the implication of the tapes, the power of the secrets they hold and to confessing her inner most thoughts. It is an erotically charged scene with no skin or physical contact; they just talk and it is hot.
The film's relationships progress the way you'd expect them to. Ann and John have their problems and John and Cynthia's affair is nothing more than that, but the key relationship as we knew it would be from the beginning is between Ann and Graham. Ann goes to him to be taped and the session proves to have a greater effect on Graham than her. The two complicated characters try to make sense of why they are the way they are. The scene is handled with great care, nothing too fancy, just them taking it out and it works. The whole film just worked for me as I was totally engrossed from start to finish.
A lot of times when I watch movies I will occasionally check my phone or pop up a web page to look at, but I didn't even notice the text messages I missed because I was so focused on the film. Really good movie.
Apparently Steven Soderbergh's sex, lies and videotape was somewhat of a landmark for independent American cinema as it brought attention to rising American director-writers Spike Lee, Quentin Tarantino, Kevin Smith and the Coen Brothers.
Grade: A
Friday, November 4, 2011
Day 198 - Margin Call
Margin Call (2011) directed by J.C. Chandor
It should be noted that I know next to nothing about the financial world other than to give the blanket statement, "The economy is bad." Why exactly? I'm not entirely sure but based on the public outrage and media coverage it has something to do with Wall Street execs living in their mansions using our money as toilet paper. Sound about right? Back in 2008 when it all came apart, I used to watch CNBC pretty frequently to watch the talking heads go in circles about who to blame, how to fix things and how they all saw it coming, which was kind of amusing to me because these same people were nowhere to be found before it all unraveled. I used to wonder what went on during those fateful days at Lehman Brothers and like firms when it all came crashing down. One moment everything is fine, the next everyone is in a panic when they see the writing on the wall. Margin Call is a film inspired by the current economic downturn that gives a behind the scenes look at an unnamed investment bank during the 24 hour period before the shit hits the fan.
The film begins with the mass firing of a bunch of employees at an unnamed firm including Eric Dale, who works in risk management. Before he goes he gives a USB drive of his work to his trusted employee Peter Sullivan with the warning, "Be careful." Burning the midnight oil, Peter finishes his former boss's work and realizes the firm is in deep trouble. The firm is neck deep in such high risk assets that even a modest dip would cause it to lose more money than the firm is even worth. From what I understand, this is the gist of what happened in 2008 as bank after bank suffered huge losses causing the economy to crash. A late night meeting of the upper brass takes place to try to figure out how to get out of this mess they created. Their solution is a quick fire sale of all these essentially worthless assets before the market catches on.
What is remarkable about Margin Call is that I didn't understand half of the stuff they were talking about yet I was completely absorbed in the story. The film is intelligent yet tries to be simple enough for the layman to understand. It is well written, well acted and entirely believable. I know a couple of people who work or have worked in the financial industry so I'll have to ask them about what they thought of the movie. For all I know they might think it's totally unrealistic or dumb but for a simpleton like me, I found it quite fascinating. (A good buddy of mine is a lawyer and now he can't watch any lawyer movie because they're all so flawed to him. It's sort of the same way with me and anything that involves poker. They're always horrible.)
The conflict of the film is in the ethical dilemma presented to the characters involved. How do you sell something that you know is worthless? And how do you cope with the fact that in doing so you will cause the market to crash? And the fact that they have soul sucking jobs centered around greed? My favorite scene is when Eric Dale, played by Stanley Tucci, reflects back on his career as an engineer. He once built a bridge that saved commuters x amount of miles each way. Multiply that by y number of cars that cross the bridge a day at z miles per hour over the past 22 years the bridge has been in service and he has saved over 1500 years of human life that would have otherwise been wasted sitting in car.
What helps the film greatly is its stellar cast. Each character brings something unique to the table, whether it is Kevin Spacey having issues with what the right thing to do is, Jeremy Irons as the sly CEO of the company who seems like a villain but is really just a business man making sure the company survives, Simon Baker as the cold ruthless boss, or Paul Bettany who makes no apologies for what people like him do. As much as people working on Wall Street are vilified, they are necessary if people want to continue living their comfortable lives in houses they can't afford and cars they shouldn't be driving.
I really enjoyed Margin Call. It is an interesting if not informative look at what might have gone on behind the scenes at one of the big name firms back in 2008. But again, take that with a grain of salt, because I don't know much about anything about the subject matter other than I was entertained.
Grade: B+
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Day 197 - Bully
Bully (2001) directed by Larry Clark
While I was watching this, I thought to myself that it had to be some sort of satire or twisted dark comedy because nobody could possibly be that stupid. Yet Bully is based on true life events telling the story of a group of teens who decide to kill a bully. It is almost unfathomable that people can be this stupid or so morally cavalier that they openly discuss murdering somebody in a Pizza Hut as if they were discussing what happened on the latest episode of Jersey Shore. There's no way to relate to these kids because nobody in their right mindset could think they way they do; their behavior is beyond comprehension. Yet isn't this what we always tell ourselves when we watch the latest news of school shootings? A kid walks into the cafeteria with an AK-47 because he's been picked on? Obviously it is difficult to really know just how mentally and emotionally damaged these kids are, but it is hard to sympathize with them when they do stuff not only so abhorrent but so absentmindedly.
When you watch the kids in Bully just talk on and on about how they want Bobby Kent dead, you begin to realize that they are not serious about this at all; they're just venting out their frustrations like typical teenage slackers. It is almost as much of a shock to them as it is to Bobby when they find themselves with knives stabbing him. And you can only wonder to yourself, "What the hell are they thinking?" Clearly they don't know themselves.
I suppose my issue with the film is that you cease to care about these kids because of how inanely stupid and unlikeable they are. It's so bizarre because you can't believe anybody could possibly be this dumb, yet it is based on actual events. Somehow though the message gets lost in translation. I feel as though something is missing, it feels entirely too hallow for such a revealing crime. I suppose that may be the point, to show the absurdity and pointlessness of the crime and the moral decay of the slacker counterculture. This point is exemplified by the gratuitous teenage sexuality and drug use throughout the film, but is this film about sex and drugs or is it about a bully and the psychological damage he inflicts?
In the film, Bobby Kent is portrayed as the incarnation of evil. He is verbally and physically abusive to his best friend Marty Puccio and those around him. He is also a remorseless rapist. If somebody ever deserved a harsh lesson it would be him. Marty and his friends have all the reasons in the world to kill him, yet Bully never really connects this psychology to the viewer. Instead it focuses on the endless slackerdom of the conspirators. You know Marty and Lisa are emotionally damaged; is having sex, doing drugs, and getting dumber by the minute their outlet? The frustrating thing for me was that this story is so intriguing, but the film reduces it meaningless, which again I realize was probably the point. I just wish it wasn't presented that way. If you want a good look at bizarre crime stories, you could point to Heavenly Creatures, whose crime it was based upon probably isn't half as interesting, yet is twice as compelling because it captures the psychology of the characters so much better.
Grade: C+
While I was watching this, I thought to myself that it had to be some sort of satire or twisted dark comedy because nobody could possibly be that stupid. Yet Bully is based on true life events telling the story of a group of teens who decide to kill a bully. It is almost unfathomable that people can be this stupid or so morally cavalier that they openly discuss murdering somebody in a Pizza Hut as if they were discussing what happened on the latest episode of Jersey Shore. There's no way to relate to these kids because nobody in their right mindset could think they way they do; their behavior is beyond comprehension. Yet isn't this what we always tell ourselves when we watch the latest news of school shootings? A kid walks into the cafeteria with an AK-47 because he's been picked on? Obviously it is difficult to really know just how mentally and emotionally damaged these kids are, but it is hard to sympathize with them when they do stuff not only so abhorrent but so absentmindedly.
When you watch the kids in Bully just talk on and on about how they want Bobby Kent dead, you begin to realize that they are not serious about this at all; they're just venting out their frustrations like typical teenage slackers. It is almost as much of a shock to them as it is to Bobby when they find themselves with knives stabbing him. And you can only wonder to yourself, "What the hell are they thinking?" Clearly they don't know themselves.
I suppose my issue with the film is that you cease to care about these kids because of how inanely stupid and unlikeable they are. It's so bizarre because you can't believe anybody could possibly be this dumb, yet it is based on actual events. Somehow though the message gets lost in translation. I feel as though something is missing, it feels entirely too hallow for such a revealing crime. I suppose that may be the point, to show the absurdity and pointlessness of the crime and the moral decay of the slacker counterculture. This point is exemplified by the gratuitous teenage sexuality and drug use throughout the film, but is this film about sex and drugs or is it about a bully and the psychological damage he inflicts?
In the film, Bobby Kent is portrayed as the incarnation of evil. He is verbally and physically abusive to his best friend Marty Puccio and those around him. He is also a remorseless rapist. If somebody ever deserved a harsh lesson it would be him. Marty and his friends have all the reasons in the world to kill him, yet Bully never really connects this psychology to the viewer. Instead it focuses on the endless slackerdom of the conspirators. You know Marty and Lisa are emotionally damaged; is having sex, doing drugs, and getting dumber by the minute their outlet? The frustrating thing for me was that this story is so intriguing, but the film reduces it meaningless, which again I realize was probably the point. I just wish it wasn't presented that way. If you want a good look at bizarre crime stories, you could point to Heavenly Creatures, whose crime it was based upon probably isn't half as interesting, yet is twice as compelling because it captures the psychology of the characters so much better.
Grade: C+
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Day 196 - Take Shelter
Take Shelter (2011) directed by Jeff Nichols
Take Shelter is about a movie about impending doom, a great storm perhaps, maybe even the end of the world, no matter. Whatever it is, it is coming and it will be biblical. The only problem is that only one person can feel it. Curtis, a simple family man with a normal life, suddenly begins to have nightmares so vivid that they haunt him every waking (and sleeping) moment. His dog bites him in his dream and when he wakes up his arm throbs with pain at where he was bit. He promptly builds a doghouse outside for the beloved dog that has lived indoors his whole life. He dares not tell his wife why. Curtis realizes he is hallucinating but cannot help but be consumed by his visions. For him, this is a serious issue since his mother was diagnosed with schizophrenia at the age he is now. Is he losing his mind or is he really foreseeing the upcoming apocalypse? Despite a tight family budget that revolves around their daughter's health care, Curtis becomes preoccupied in fixing up the tornado shelter in the backyard alienating his family and friends in the process.
The beauty of the film is in the incredible unease that never lets go. It's in watching Michael Shannon's performance as Curtis, a man losing his grip on everything around him. As the viewer, we have no idea what is real and what isn't because we see things through Curtis's eyes. We don't know if we are crazy with him or actual witnesses of the future. It actually doesn't matter if Curtis is crazy or not because the doom that he feels is absolutely real. We only have to believe how he feels, not the visions themselves.
It would be easy to overlook this film as a typical supernatural suspense drama, and it is great at being just that, but very few films can achieve the quietly unnerving atmosphere Take Shelter is able to maintain throughout its entirety. It is also a fantastic look at the toll mental illness takes on the affected and the people that surround them. The film is all about Michael Shannon's performance, but Jessica Chastain, who's been in everything lately (The Help, The Debt, The Tree of Life), is great as well as the wife who struggles to deal with his husband's condition.
This film has a couple of incredibly powerful scenes. One is when Curtis confronts the gossiping community around him that is as terrifying as the visions he sees. The other is when a storm does come and Curtis and his wife and daughter are in the storm shelter. This is one of the best scenes I've seen all year and I wish the film ended right there because as I mentioned before, it doesn't matter whether Curtis is right or not. The heart of the film lies in the the shelter itself not what lies outside. The emotional climax is in facing whatever is out there together which I thought was so beautifully done.
Grade: A-
Take Shelter is about a movie about impending doom, a great storm perhaps, maybe even the end of the world, no matter. Whatever it is, it is coming and it will be biblical. The only problem is that only one person can feel it. Curtis, a simple family man with a normal life, suddenly begins to have nightmares so vivid that they haunt him every waking (and sleeping) moment. His dog bites him in his dream and when he wakes up his arm throbs with pain at where he was bit. He promptly builds a doghouse outside for the beloved dog that has lived indoors his whole life. He dares not tell his wife why. Curtis realizes he is hallucinating but cannot help but be consumed by his visions. For him, this is a serious issue since his mother was diagnosed with schizophrenia at the age he is now. Is he losing his mind or is he really foreseeing the upcoming apocalypse? Despite a tight family budget that revolves around their daughter's health care, Curtis becomes preoccupied in fixing up the tornado shelter in the backyard alienating his family and friends in the process.
The beauty of the film is in the incredible unease that never lets go. It's in watching Michael Shannon's performance as Curtis, a man losing his grip on everything around him. As the viewer, we have no idea what is real and what isn't because we see things through Curtis's eyes. We don't know if we are crazy with him or actual witnesses of the future. It actually doesn't matter if Curtis is crazy or not because the doom that he feels is absolutely real. We only have to believe how he feels, not the visions themselves.
It would be easy to overlook this film as a typical supernatural suspense drama, and it is great at being just that, but very few films can achieve the quietly unnerving atmosphere Take Shelter is able to maintain throughout its entirety. It is also a fantastic look at the toll mental illness takes on the affected and the people that surround them. The film is all about Michael Shannon's performance, but Jessica Chastain, who's been in everything lately (The Help, The Debt, The Tree of Life), is great as well as the wife who struggles to deal with his husband's condition.
This film has a couple of incredibly powerful scenes. One is when Curtis confronts the gossiping community around him that is as terrifying as the visions he sees. The other is when a storm does come and Curtis and his wife and daughter are in the storm shelter. This is one of the best scenes I've seen all year and I wish the film ended right there because as I mentioned before, it doesn't matter whether Curtis is right or not. The heart of the film lies in the the shelter itself not what lies outside. The emotional climax is in facing whatever is out there together which I thought was so beautifully done.
Grade: A-
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Day 195 - Halloween
Halloween (1978) directed by John Carpenter
Better later than never, right? I said I was done with horror after yesterday but figured if I didn't watch Halloween now I wouldn't have the motivation to watch it another time. I'm glad I did end up watching it, even if hiding behind my blanket, because it turned out to be a legitimately good film, comparable to a Hitchcock thriller like Psycho.
Michael Myers. We all know the name. Like Freddy and Jason, he has become a symbol of on screen terror. We don't really know what's wrong with him other than "he is pure evil." That is all the explanation you really need to know. The effectiveness of Michael Myers and the story is in the simplicity of it all. Here is a guy who is essentially a killing machine and for reasons only known to him decides to start snuffing people out. It is horror in its simplest form, the boogyman of your nightmares chasing you. You run, you plead, you fight back, it doesn't matter, he is always there lurking.
Yeah, there are tons of the films like this, but what's great about Halloween is that it creates a genuine atmosphere of terror built through setting and mood rather than cheap parlor tricks. Yes, cheap thrills are involved but they work better because of how well they are set up. It is a film that takes its time to set the mood right and then once you're good and ready takes you for a ride. I loved how the middle of the movie is just Michael silently stalking Laurie and her friends. No, these aren't scary scenes, but they have an uneasy vibe and creepiness to them that magnifies the violence that is to come. Speaking of which, like Psycho, I also appreciated that Halloween isn't actually that violent. For being the quintessential slasher picture, there isn't that much slashing, certainly not much blood. Carpenter takes a page out of Hitchcock's book proving that blood and guts are secondary to a well crafted scene.
One of the things you're always on the lookout for in a horror movie is anticipating when and where the scare is going to come. For instance, if there's a nice empty space in the composition there is a good chance the bad guy is going to appear in that spot. It makes you always pay attention to the screen, eyes scanning for any potential danger spots. What is nice about Michael Myers is the white mask he wears and how it pops out in the dark settings. When the white mask materializes out of the shadows it makes a pretty cool and scary picture. A nice looking shot is when Laurie takes a moment after she thinks she's killed Michael. In the background behind her you can see him pop back up and slowly approach her. The white mask does wonders here, first by making him seem like a ghost coming to life, then by creating a visually compelling shot.
When a film is at the top of its own genre I think it is safe to call it a great film, period, and that is what Halloween is.
Side Note: I think horror must have the highest ratio of dumb characters per capita. This is why you always hear people yell out stuff to the screen like, "Don't go out there by yourself!" Even Halloween is not immune to such behavior. Laurie thinks she's killed Michael not once, but twice, and both time she just has her back turned to his body not even bothering to make sure he's really dead allowing him to creep up behind her. You think she would have learned the first time? Oh well, sometimes you just got to let these things slide for the sake of the movie.
Grade: A-
Better later than never, right? I said I was done with horror after yesterday but figured if I didn't watch Halloween now I wouldn't have the motivation to watch it another time. I'm glad I did end up watching it, even if hiding behind my blanket, because it turned out to be a legitimately good film, comparable to a Hitchcock thriller like Psycho.
Michael Myers. We all know the name. Like Freddy and Jason, he has become a symbol of on screen terror. We don't really know what's wrong with him other than "he is pure evil." That is all the explanation you really need to know. The effectiveness of Michael Myers and the story is in the simplicity of it all. Here is a guy who is essentially a killing machine and for reasons only known to him decides to start snuffing people out. It is horror in its simplest form, the boogyman of your nightmares chasing you. You run, you plead, you fight back, it doesn't matter, he is always there lurking.
Yeah, there are tons of the films like this, but what's great about Halloween is that it creates a genuine atmosphere of terror built through setting and mood rather than cheap parlor tricks. Yes, cheap thrills are involved but they work better because of how well they are set up. It is a film that takes its time to set the mood right and then once you're good and ready takes you for a ride. I loved how the middle of the movie is just Michael silently stalking Laurie and her friends. No, these aren't scary scenes, but they have an uneasy vibe and creepiness to them that magnifies the violence that is to come. Speaking of which, like Psycho, I also appreciated that Halloween isn't actually that violent. For being the quintessential slasher picture, there isn't that much slashing, certainly not much blood. Carpenter takes a page out of Hitchcock's book proving that blood and guts are secondary to a well crafted scene.
One of the things you're always on the lookout for in a horror movie is anticipating when and where the scare is going to come. For instance, if there's a nice empty space in the composition there is a good chance the bad guy is going to appear in that spot. It makes you always pay attention to the screen, eyes scanning for any potential danger spots. What is nice about Michael Myers is the white mask he wears and how it pops out in the dark settings. When the white mask materializes out of the shadows it makes a pretty cool and scary picture. A nice looking shot is when Laurie takes a moment after she thinks she's killed Michael. In the background behind her you can see him pop back up and slowly approach her. The white mask does wonders here, first by making him seem like a ghost coming to life, then by creating a visually compelling shot.
When a film is at the top of its own genre I think it is safe to call it a great film, period, and that is what Halloween is.
Side Note: I think horror must have the highest ratio of dumb characters per capita. This is why you always hear people yell out stuff to the screen like, "Don't go out there by yourself!" Even Halloween is not immune to such behavior. Laurie thinks she's killed Michael not once, but twice, and both time she just has her back turned to his body not even bothering to make sure he's really dead allowing him to creep up behind her. You think she would have learned the first time? Oh well, sometimes you just got to let these things slide for the sake of the movie.
Grade: A-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)