Change Your Image
Allen-31
Reviews
Sicko (2007)
a must see movie
Saw the movie and loved it. This should be a must see. Of course Michael Moore is one-sided on this issue. But so was "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair and other notable works of activism like "Silent Spring". That didn't mean they were wrong.
I could have done less with Moore's commentary, but its his style. At least it isn't nearly as prevalent in this film as compared to some others he's done.
An interesting point that Moore raises in the film as a question about our cultural identity as a nation when it comes to issues like health care is: "Who ARE we?" And although he doesn't answer it, I'll give my answer. We are a country that culturally is motivated by greed. Every man for himself. "Got mine, screw you." If you believe in using taxes to make lives better for your fellow neighbors and citizens no matter whether they are rich or poor, you're some kind of sucker. That's the legacy we're fighting in the uphill battle for universal health care.
A word though about the detractors of this film. They seem to fall into three categories:
1. The MM haters who review the film by personally attacking Moore and not even addressing the film except to apply adjectives to it like "fraud", "lies", etc. Yeah, REAL convincing argument there.
2. The irrational who take the premise of "socialized medicine" and immediately jump to Communinism, Nazism, and how all citizens will lose all their rights if we dare even move in the direction of universal health care. (Based on which you'd think that by now England would be living in the world of "V for Vendetta". Oh, it isn't?)
3. The US "experts" on how bad universal health care is in other countries. If they aren't baldly lying, they are taking a statement with a grain of truth in it and blowing it up so many orders of magnitude as to make it appear that they have made some kind of unassailable point about us good, them bad.
My suggestion to combat these critics? Go online and find a forum that nationals from these other countries gather at and ask them questions about their health care systems. Not every system is perfect. But in all the opinions I've read NO ONE is willing to give up their national health system in favor of the American model, or even seriously consider replicating part of our system. Wait times are often the most exaggerated lies spread around. And if people are coming to the USA for health care its usually motivated by highly particular circumstances, not because if they had it done at home they'd surely die waiting or some ridiculous argument like that. And guess what? Those foreigners are coming with all the money in hand or high-cost extra private insurance to pay the full outrageous US bill. Meaning a good amount of them who hop over to the US for some treatments are wealthy to begin with.
Finally the thing you NEVER hear the critics address is American ingenuity to solve the problem. They point out one or two bad things about this or that country's system, condemn their entire approach based on those negatives, and then conclude that we therefore already have the best system in the world and to change it would be disastrous. NEVER does a single one of them talk about the good old-fashioned concept of stealing the best ideas from a variety of sources to build a better system than any of the others. No, just be thankful for what you already have (even if you aren't allowed in because you aren't healthy enough, can't afford it, or will be bankrupted by it via denial of claims). End of story.
That's why I think most of these people (usually in the #3 category) are shills for big health care and big pharma who are trying to spread misinformation in order to maintain the status quo. Don't listen to them. They DO NOT have your best interests in mind.
Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles (1994)
An excellent adaptation
Overall one of the best vampire movies out there.
I just have two complaints:
First, Antonio Banderas is horribly miscast as Armand. The character in the novel was a red-haired teenager (~17 years old) of Russian origin with the face of a "Botecelli angel" who had spent hundreds of years in Rome prior to taking leadership of the Paris coven and the subsequent transformation of it into the Theatre de les Vampires. Maybe Neil Jordan just wanted a well-known playing the part? Making Armand into a tall, black-haired, menacing, Spaniard type with almost indecipherable speech at times due to a thick accent is beyond me. Maybe he wanted to make Armand more frightening in appearance, but that completely goes against one of Armand's chief weapons -- his disarming beauty that conveys a false sense of innocence that allows him to lie so effectively.
Second, reading a previous comment I was stunned to learn that there's an hour more to this movie that has never been released. Someone **please** convince Neil Jordan to make a "director's cut" DVD!!
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)
I thought it was really good
Just saw the movie today. MUCH better than I expected it would be. I was dreading 2-1/2 hours of Hollywood "fantasy" piffle. But it appears the director took his cues from LOTR and Harry Potter. The effects serve the story, not the other way around. And the story is what REALLY sells this picture combined with the great cinematography. It's a very faithful rendition of what I remember from reading the book so long ago. The acting is the only weak part, largely because of the kids being relatively new. Tilda is fantastic as the White Witch. And the talking animals do not seem overtly silly as I feared. Aslan is wonderful. Even Mr. Tummus is quite good. So the kids' acting abilities are more are more than made up for by experienced cast members.
And anyone who has it in their head that this is a "Christian" movie and fear being evangelized by it, not to worry. The brilliance of Narnia is that it doesn't preach and doesn't hit you in the head with a sledgehammer in order to point out the Christian parallels. And you can read as much Christian allegory into it as you want. It's not hard (speaking as a non-Christian) to approach this movie with a deep liking for Aslan's spiritual nature and the common themes of love, good, evil, betrayal, redemption, and forgiveness in this film. In fact if all that wasn't there, it would be a visually pretty but ultimately empty piece of Hollywood fluff. Of course people will compare it to "The Lord of the Rings" which is a much more mature work. But as an adaptation of a children's story, I think they did a fine job.
Treat yourself and go see it. Fair warning though. The theater I went to was packed with little kids, many under age 7. I don't think kids that young are going to get that much from the film. I often heard young voices piping up asking questions and parents working to shush them. Fortunately I was sitting far enough away from most of the kids, so it wasn't too distracting.
P.S. -- It pays to linger a little bit after the credits start rolling. There's a nice little end scene that suddenly cuts in about a minute or so after the credits start. Don't rush for the exit.
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)
how they should have done it
What a piece of trash. It's nothing more than a film that tried to outdo the action sequences of its two predecessors. No characters development. In fact, it more features character un-development as we see Jon Connor go from amazingly cool kid with budding leadership qualities in "T2" to whiny 20-something wuss in this movie.
And it also seems that the director went to great pains to undo the time travel logic of the first two films. Time travel stories naturally have to deal with paradox, but you can't resolve paradox one way then turn around and throw that reasoning out the window in favor of another explanation. They did, and it completely undermined the reasons why we were told the first two stories happened. As it stands, Jon Connor had nothing to fear from the Terminatrix. If fate is after all inescapable as Arnold declared, then Jon could've walked right up to the Terminatrix and planted a big IL' kiss right on her lips and she would have still not been able to kill him because he was fated to be the leader of the future resistance having survived nuclear Armageddon with knowledge of how to fight the machines. Stupid.
If they'd wanted to keep in line with the idea that fate can be changed, then here is a much better idea that could have been a plot device to make an exciting "T3" movie:
Jon is in his 20s. A third T-100 comes back and informs him that new information uncovered AFTER the dispatching of the first two protectors is that one last Terminator was sent back, but its primary mission was to first protect Cyberdine's existence, then eliminate John immediately following the nuclear strike. Cyberdine executives, understanding how radical the research their company was doing, had made extensive back-ups of the information thought destroyed in the previous movie. After the destruction of the main lab in T2, further research was shifted to the military when Cyberdine reformed as an exclusive military contractor whose existence is classified so as to be protected from future "terrorist" threats.
The plot could have been just as exciting and action packed, but with a new formula. Instead of running AWAY from the enemy terminator, John, the T-100 and supporting cast would be on the offensive actively trying to bring Cyberdine down while the T-1000 or T-X or whatever is disguising itself as a military/Cyberdine big shot and doing everything to ensure Judgement Day and still try to eliminate John so he can't lead the humans to victory 20 years later.
Ah, what could have been...
The Village (2004)
Rod Serling would be proud
I avoided seeing this movie in the theater due to bad reviews and word of mouth. I think I'm glad I did because I, too, probably would have had my impression of the film colored by its false advertising as a horror movie.
This movie is not horror -- at all.
That being said, my wait for it to come to video was free of any misconceptions about what it was. Distanced from the advertising hype and the bad press, I rented it with little or no expectations about what I was going to see.
To my utter delight, what I got to watch was a splendid movie that is a wonderful study of character, mood, suspense, and neat twists that would have made Rod Serling proud. This movie is quintessential "Twilight Zone" material only so much more richer for the excellent performances by virtually every cast member and the script which fleshes out a delicate, multi-layered world. All of this would be very difficult to accomplish in a standard 30-minute TZ episode.
This movie is a wonderful treat that is quite unusual for standard Hollywood fare. One can only hope that in the future, Hollywood will learn how to develop advertising for films so that it can find its proper audience instead of misleading people into thinking they are going to see something completely different.
To Gillian on Her 37th Birthday (1996)
works much better as a play
I watched this film a number of years ago. And how could I resist? This is the film version of the play I directed at the Walla Walla Little Theater for my senior project in theater back in 1990.
Suffice to say, this movie really does away with the cozy script and the well-rounded characters to present something much more "TV-slick" and less than emotionally satisfying. Virtually no character is the same, and many have been given personality lobotomies for no apparent reason.
If you get a chance to see "Gillian" at your local theater, go. It's works well in a more intimate, live setting. Here, the changed story is so much wasted potential.
Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)
not much new for the informed...
I went to this, mainly because I'm already very anti-Bush. We'll just clear that up right now.
And even though there were many aspects of this film I liked, on the whole I thought it was very shallow in its treatment. In short, there was really nothing new here for anyone who had bothered to read.
On the web, one can find with a little bit of effort many documents and writings from well-known, well-connected, well-respected people who have worked in the government, the FBI, CIA, etc., many Republican in background or worked heavily under people like Reagan, who spell out the criticisms of Bush in much, MUCH more detail. Criticism of Bush and his three years in office is quite valid.
But what Michael Moore does here for the most part is boil a lot of that stuff down into very simplistic explanations that don't nearly go into the depth that these officials explore. That, combined with a number of cheap shots as well as his own narrated dubious conclusions and rhetorical questions, makes for a film that I fear can be torn apart by conservatives because it doesn't explain *ENOUGH*. It leaves holes. And as anyone who watches partisan politics knows, the opposition will jump on a hole to discredit the argument outright -- they don't happily point to the fact that you left out explaining something in enough detail to make your point iron-clad and immune to criticism.
The dangerous thing about half-truths is that they are often worse than lies.
But the other bad thing about a half-truth is that one made in good faith or error is also a statement that then needs to be defended later when an up-front thorough explanation would have been beyond reproach. But at that point, you're on the defensive and the people who aren't convinced will be even harder to convince.
The problem, of course, with using film to catalog the criticism of the Bush Administration and the Iraq War is that the medium itself does not lend itself to intensive, detailed discussion. I identified at least a dozen subjects he touched on that could have had whole two-hour movies to themselves. But Moore didn't want to put moveigoers to sleep, so he glossed over stuff with simplistic explanations and conclusions to make it more understandable and appealing to large audiences.
My opinion? No matter what political stripe you are from, you should see this film. But then the follow up is to go and READ, READ, READ. Don't take Michael Moore's word for it. Go and consult the sources and get a view of the much bigger picture.
And harden your heart, because it's a lot of depressing reading.
Mystic River (2003)
good for a rental... a bit overrated
Overall it was a thoroughly watchable movie. The acting was superb.
It did suffer, however, from being a bit predictable and a bit too long. And not only that, the plot and its "what actually happened that night?" resolution hinged on so many coincidental random events as to be improbable and unbelievable.
*** SPOILERS WARNING *** Sean Penn's daughter, on the night she is going to elope to Las Vegas with her boyfriend, runs into her boyfriend's younger brother and pal late at night on a dark, empty street who in turn accidentally shoot her then feel they have to kill her so she won't tell anyone. Meanwhile, estranged friend of Sean Penn who was sexually abused as a child happens to have seen the daughter minutes before she leaves last place seen alive, but then on his way home he murders a randomly encountered pedophile, hides the body, and is so upset by it that he lies unconvincingly to everyone about what happened making them suspicious that he killed the girl. And so, predictably, he becomes the innocent victim of a revenge killing.
The sheer amount of random chance built into all these events was what made it unbelievable. I'm not saying such a thing would be impossible. But it's like reading the true story about the two elderly sisters in the South who lived over a hundred miles apart and died in a high-speed head-on collision with each other on a stretch of highway between where they lived.
Except that was established fact. This is a film, making it a lot harder to swallow.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
In the Extended Edition
Do not take this list an absolute authority on what will be included in the Extended Edition (EE) of "Return of the King". Take heart however that there are good reasons for every entry on this list because most of the scenes were known to have been filmed as still shots have turned up in various books that have been published on the film, and even the official movie site.
Also, apparently not long ago, Jackson gave an interview to a German magazine and gave a ballpark running time for the extended edition of 4 hours and 15 minutes. This may just be a rumor, but if true, the EE will then be roughly 50-55 minutes longer than the theatrical release.
Things most likely to be seen in the Extended Edition:
1. The wrap-up of the Saruman-Wormtongue story line. Jackson has already gone on record that this 7-minute scene will be the EE. Saruman's and Wormtongue's fate will be spelled out here.
2. The confrontation between Gandalf and the Witch King. This doesn't happen at the breaking of the main gate but instead on the walls of Minas Tirith. Pippin is with Gandalf on Shadowdfax and the Witch King is riding a fell beast.
3. The Houses of Healing. Many missed the part of Eowyn and Faramir's relationship. The Houses of Healing will show Aragorn's healing ability and help fill in this beautiful sub-plot that resolves Eowyn's unrequited love for Aragorn.
4. The trek across Mordor. Think that Sam and Frodo's journey seemed a bit compressed once they were inside Mordor? The official movie book provides a two page spread of pictures and explanation of Frodo and Sam getting caught up in the orc armies and forced to march with them as they are mistaken for deserters. It's reasonable to assume that this and other scenes with flesh out the final trek quite a bit more.
5. Merry's pledge of service to King Theoden. Pictures exist of this scene, but not much is known about how it is fleshed out.
6. Confrontation at the Black Gate with the Mouth of Sauron, Mordor's chief human lieutenant. Although no pictures of this scene have surfaced, The Mouth of Sauron was credited in extended cast lists to the same guy who played the Train Master in "Matrix Revolutions".
7. Eomer's discovery of King Theoden and Eowyn where they fell on the battlefield.
If there is indeed 50-55 additional minutes, then this list is by no means exhaustive. There will probably be a lot of longer scenes like in the Two Towers EE as well as several wholly new scenes we know nothing about as yet.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
great movie adaptation of a truly challenging work
I probably can't heap any more praise than has already been offered on top of this film. It is simply wonderful. And I say this as a Tolkien fan who has read the books at least a dozen times since the fifth grade. (I am 34 now.)
Of course there were cuts to be made. LOTR is not a cinematically constructed novel. And I don't mind how Peter Jackson made his cuts and changes. Obviously there isn't going to be long exposition about the myriad of historial references to Middle Earth. Peter Jackson managed to capture the essence of the story without sacrificing much. Of course, like many Tolkien fans, I have a list of things that I wish were different. But none of these really detracted from my overall enjoyment of the film.
Glad Bombadil didn't make it into the script at all. The ONLY important fact of the journey from the Shire to Bree was the nature of the swords that the hobbits recovered from the barrow after Bombadil rescued them, but even that is probably too much info to try to explain in the film narrative. Bombadil is a great character, but his involvement is isolated and contributes nothing to the development of the rest of the story after he and the hobbits part company before reaching Bree. Better he was left out all together.
I also didn't take issue with the lack of seeing Legolas and Gimli becoming such great friends in the first film, mainly because the bulk of that happens in The Two Towers. If Jackson downplays it there, then it will be worth critisizing at that point.
Arwen? Didn't really bother me. She is making up for the loss of a couple of minor characters (Glorfindel, Elrond's sons who join the battle later on). And if her romance with Aragorn can be played up a bit instead of acknowlegded but invisible as it was in the novel, it will make for a lot more dramatic tension when Eowyn's obvious liking for Aragorn twangs a few unrequited heartstrings later on.
If I had to list the films weakest points, I would mention the following:
- I didn't care for interpreting Merry and Pippin as mostly comic relief. I can't image that Peter Jackson won't correct this in the upcoming films since they play important parts in the development of the war. But I wish Jackson has preserved SOME of their original motivation. Merry, Pippin and Sam knew of the Ring from their years of friendly spying on Bilbo, Frodo, and Gandalf, and when they came to know how important and dangerous it was, they were determined to help Frodo "through thick and thin." Making them funny, accidental companions didn't do their characters much justice. I really missed Pippin telling off Elrond when Elrond declared he was against Pippin being part of the Fellowship. "Then, Master Elrond, you will have to lock me in prison or send me home tied in a sack. Otherwise I shall follow the company." Brave words from a truly devoted friend and much preferable to his rambling, comic speech in the film that I think should have disqualified him from going on a mission to save the world.
- Not enough Lothlorien and Galadriel. The special edition DVD is supposed to correct this. I can't wait.
- I thought the time spent on the collapsing staircase scene in Moria could have been devoted instead to more plot and/or character development (like Merry and Pippin). Not that it wasn't exciting and well done, but with the Balrog in pursuit this additional 3-4 minute action sequence invented solely for the movie could have easily been dropped for important things that actually happened in the novel.
But despite these flaws, a truly wonderful and awe-inspiring adaptation of a very good story that is hard to adapt. My hats off to Peter Jackson, the cast, and crew. Can't wait for films two and three.
Spider-Man (2002)
the star of the movie is the special effects (sigh...)
A feel-good superhero action flick. The chief selling point is, of course, the special effects and relentless pace of the action that completely overwhelm the thin script and reduces much of the film to being something like a ride at a major studio theme park.
Luckily we are treated to some wonderful acting moments by Tobey Maguire, but there is no acting at all when he's replaced by a CGI Spiderman. It's a shame, really. Christopher Reeve and Micahel Keaton at least got to act when in costume.
William Dafoe is always a great actor to watch. (I initially had hoped that he would play The Joker in the original Batman film -- and I stand by my opinion that he would have done as good or better job than Nicholson.) The problem here, of course, is not a CGI issue, it's that you can't see his face behind the Goblin's rigid mask.
The woman who played Aunt May was very good. Uncle Ben's part was way too syrup-y with heavy implications. I didn't know the story, and yet I could tell almost instantly that their conversation in the car was the "fateful last conversation they'll ever have which shall cause emotional angst for Peter." Other performances ranged from good to mediocre.
It's my personal opinion that the superhero genre is being milked by the studios because of their instant revenue via eye-popping effects, not because they make outstanding films. "Superman" is still the best example of a superhero film that actually had a really good *story* to tell... but that was made back in the days when actors didn't have to compete with special effects. If "Superman" had been made today, it would probably would have featured acting and writing on the scale of the "Lois & Clark" TV series with CGI battles and effects making up more than 50% of the film. I suspect we won't see any more good superhero films until some studio has the balls to do "Watchmen". But hey, maybe that's why "Watchmen" hasn't been made yet -- so much story that it's hard to condense properly into a 2-hour film.
Forget the standard 4-star ratings systems these days. That doesn't provide any useful context in today's movie-going reality. Here's a better system:
Worth seeing at full price, worth seeing at matinee price, wait for video/DVD, or don't bother even renting it.
This movie rates between matinee price and wait for video.
The Plague Dogs (1982)
an excellent cartoon for more mature audiences
I saw this film back in high school. Although I wouldn't call it my favorite animated film, it ranks as probably among the most special to me because it completely defies the conventions that most animated films adhere to.
It is a greatly distilled version of the book by the same name (written by "Watership Down" author, Richard Adams), and it ends the story earlier than the book. You have to read the book to understand how this alters the outcome, but suffice to say I agree with a preivous reviewer in that the film ends the only way it CAN end. In order to duplicate the ending of the book, the film would have to be twice as long and explain a lot more of the human side of the story. The filmmakers decided to focus almost exclusively on the dogs' story -- with humans as the enemy and subtle political commentary. That is at it should be given the 90 minute-length.
A synopsis: Snitter and Rowf, two dogs in an animal research facility, escape from their tormentors and tortured existence into the wilds of the English Lake District. Snitter (the brains of the pair despite the peculiar surgeries performed on his head) has perviously had a master and desperately wants that existence again for both of them. This sets up immediate problems as the dogs are pursued by humans while learning survival skills with the aid of a fox who sees the dogs as a meal-ticket to doing the hard work of hunting for food among the numerous livestock pastures of the countryside. Although you have to listen carefully in the film to catch the human world reprecussions of the dogs' escape, the situation spins out of control as it becomes known that the research facility was doing experiments with bubonic plague and the fear that the dogs might be carriers (their actions at the beginning of the film show they are not).
This is a wholly remarkable animated film -- a cartoon that is a DRAMA in the truest sense, not a comedy or cheesy Disney-esque reinterpretation of the original work. *DO NOT* plop the kiddies down in front of it, lest you want them screaming and crying before the first fifteen minutes are over. There are plenty of disturbing and/or shocking scenes as well as moments that will move some adult viewers to tears.
Stunning animation, excellent vocals from top English actors (including a voice cameo by Patrick Stewart), a good story, and likable "heroes" tops off this film as a must see if you are an animation buff, or simply a taste of something different from usual movie fare for the average viewer.
Meet the Parents (2000)
Expecting laughs... where were they?
I was really hoping to see a good movie, but it was just painful to watch. Oh, there were a few chuckles here and there but for the most part those were sight gags.
And while I had no problems with the acting, the characters lacked humor -- in the case of the "parents", literally, since we were warned about that. But why are we supposed to laugh at people who don't get a joke? And who are rude? (Aside from being completely disinterested in Greg's gift, they don't even feign appreciation or say "thank you.")
The fiance is extremely thoughtless in having her ex-fiance an integral part of the weekend without telling Greg.
The ex-fiance and the other associated family are rich, pretentious snobs who get their laughs making fun of Greg's real name.
To top it all off, with the weekend off to such a bad start from the beginning, Greg sinks to embarrassing stupidity in some of his actions, namely regarding the imposter cat.
Pass on this one. Unless you're a masochist.
The Langoliers (1995)
great book, so-so movie
I am biased because the story was my favorite in Stephen King's "Four Past Midnight" collection. I always thought it would make an excellent movie, but I was thinking BIG screen, not little.
Turns out I'm right. While the script was faithful to the novella, a lot of the acting was terrible. David Morse was the notable exception to this as the Capt. Brian Engle. The guy playing Toomey was way over the top. You'd think with almost four hours they'd be able to portray an effective look at his madness and his refusal to believe what is happening to him, but instead he's a cornball plot device designed to give the other characters something to worry about.
Bad, bad special effects. And that's where being a bigger budget theatrical release could have improved.
The thing is, bad acting and effects aside, this is a wonderfully original suspense story with plenty of mystery and plot twists. I'm disappointed it wasn't better because it could have been better even as a TV movie. Chalk it up to the director.
Batman Returns (1992)
not that great, but better than 3 and 4!
This movie doesn't absolutely stink. It does have redeeming qualities. Unfortunately, I think its image in evalated in light of "Batman Forever" and "Batman and Robin," both of which absolutely sucked.
Good points:
Michael Keaton returns as Batman. He is the best to date.
Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman. She simply IS Catwoman. I'd even go so far as to say her interpretation of the character was far more dead on than Nicholson's Joker in the first movie. If those two had been paired together... the thought sends chills down my spine!
Christopher Walken turns in another fine performance as a villanous businessman.
The mood is still suitably dark. Camp is low, and where it exists it is appropriate.
Bad points:
The interpretation of the Penguin. This arch-villian was changed so much from the original character (a genius turned to crime) and not for the better (a deformed and ugly circus freak who is just flat-out gross in everything he does). Danny DeVito is an excellent casting choice, but his character was unlikable without a single redeeming feature.
The plot suffers from attempting to cram too many villians and plot lines into the allotted time. Splitting the screen time between all three undercuts their stories such that a lot of what happens seems contrived and phony -- except for Catwoman. Her's is the only villian role that seems to flow naturally, maybe because her goals don't involve grand-scale plans, just the thrill of making mayhem while trying to get the best of Batman. Admittedly, it would be a hard choice as to who to leave out as both villians are created or used by Christopher Walken's character. My personal opinion is that a wholly different script should have been used, but perserving most of the Catwoman story line or expanding it because she's just so damn good.
The Sixth Sense (1999)
Should be remembered at Oscar time
Disturbing, emotional, and all together fantastic. This is certainly one of the best films of 1999, a sleeper that roared at the box office.
I don't think I've ever seen a more difficult child's role tackled with incredible talent than that of Cole played by Haley Joel Osment. This kid deserves an Oscar. The movie as a whole should qualify in several other Oscar categories including best director, original screenplay, cinematography, and -- dare I say it -- best picture? I can't think of many other films this year that should qualify for best picture category.
I won't bother giving a run-down summary of the film as so many others have done that here, but instead say that this film is all the evidence one needs that the horror genre really deserves to be "rescued from the kiddies" (i.e. the 14-24 year old male demographic) with its reliance on cheap tricks, over-the-top effects, senseless violence and gore, and liberal use of mocking or brainless humor. Hopefully Hollywood will pick up the clue-phone. It's been ringing a long time.
The Blair Witch Project (1999)
A truly remarkable film
Finally saw the movie after reading about it, hearing about it, and yes I knew it was fiction. It still sent my heart racing in several spots. I wouldn't call it the scariest movie I've ever seen, but it ranked higher than most. The tension was so raw, and the climax at the end was utterly convincing. Horror? Yes, but not the spoon-fed gimmicky horror of Scream or The Haunting.
I know there will be a lot of people who won't get it. People who haven't grown sick of Hollywood potty-training will not be able to appreciate something as inventive as this. Ironically, you could criticize the film for not having much of a plot and that the characters don't act logically. But the film perfectly emulates real life which isn't plotted and people frequently aren't logical under such stress. We can only make those criticisms because we are outside viewers. To enjoy this film, you have can't set yourself "above" it an expect to be entertained.
I saw the movie with a friend who found it plenty disturbing. His summary was "the perfect example of how three inexperienced people who have NO business being in the woods in the first place royally screw themselves over." I agree. I almost burst into tears along with the students when they encountered the log crossing they'd been at earlier in the day and realized they'd been going in circles. Witch legend or not, this should be a testament to anyone who wants to go jaunting off into the deep woods without any serious preparation or at least a local guide in an unfamiliar area.
As for whatever was stalking them, well that was the truly disturbing part. The ending was terrifying, and utterly confusing at the same time. Those who didn't like the ending
well, the film said that these students disappeared and were never found. It didn't say that they died, although I'm certain that's what happened to them. People don't disappear and leave tidy explanations as to what happened to them. I found myself haunted by this film long after I left the theater, and I had anxiety dreams about it all night.
Bravo to Haxan Films. Maybe this will be a wake-up call to the Holly-hacks that have reduced the so-called "horror genre" to cheap scares, gore, CGI unbelievability, and gratuitous wise-cracks and laugh lines.