fogplaya Reviews

Sinister (I) (2012)

Not really that good to be honest.

[4/10 · 13 October 2012]

I went to see this in a limb, for some Saturday entertainment, true- I didn't have high expectations but I didn't have low ones either as I am an avid horror fan. The film itself was stereotypical unintelligent haphazard film making. To simplify I'll list some things I liked about it and the things I didn't:

LIKED: -The murder clips, albeit a redundant plot device, were stylistically malevolent and interesting.

-Funny relief moments were entertaining.

-Basically entertaining.

DISLIKED: -Acting was generally awful. Ethan Hawke is in no way talented.

-Overplayed horror devices; Pseudo-religious demon, possession, creepy children, demonic antagonist, and JUMP SCARES!!!

-Unimaginative and predictable, (I read some peoples reviews claiming it's original or intelligent; it's so unoriginal and lacklustre I'm frightened for for those reviewer's mental health)

-I know I'm reiterating previous points, but this was very unoriginal; A family moves into a house of a former murder and are plagued by ghosts etc.etc. etc., almost crackpot overly creative father whose nagging wife (-Another point: the wife; WTF was up with her?!?!) retards protagonists/male partners curiosity, the children are menacing/ at risk and are meant to have personality or "sass" to evoke sympathy but come across wrought and one dimensional, exterior knowledgeable characters who are also comic reliefs, (SPOILER) everyone dies/disappears at the end- allowing the antagonist to continue and molest another family ($$$ SEQUEL $$$), extensive investigation allowing audience to "discover the story" along with protagonist (Side note- its seems contrary that the horror industry ~and this movie's~ terror devices stem from dramatic irony- the audience knows that the boogeyman's behind the hero, but the hero doesn't- though their plots all revolve around an ersatz mystery where the protagonists discover the ominous along with the audience, which directly paradoxes the tension and terror created by the plot, this is probably the result of the late 1990s mystery and "intelligent" horror movies that tried to appear smart by having an intricate back story, and although I'm just a modest cinema goer and not a big shot Hollywood directer it would seem more resilient if the characters were in a n almost familiar situation amplified not by supernatural means but my logical reasons to a dramatic degree)and the stupid final scare before the credits. The film was also extremely reminiscent of David Fincher's Girl with the Dragon Tattoo- male discredited writer seeking former glory (ETHAN HAWKE'S OUTFIT AND MANNERISMS WERE ALMOST EXACTLY LIKE DANIAL CRAIG'S) and even the cinematography and THE SCORE was like GwtDT's but cheaply bastardised for the lowest common denomination (seriously, watch that film I'm not even being paranoid).

-Awful lighting. Even for a horror movie.

-The English wife. Why .... what... I don't even know ... The children were clearly American so if she were to take them home to her sister's it had to be in America so was her sister English and if so why were they both in America? And if so why did she still have that clunky English accent (that sounded appalling with the Americanized dialogue) you'd think that the producers would at least ask her to fake an American accent but no, they thought it would be fine that she sounds English or some kind of Australian. (That point actually annoys me more than it should)

-Final plot twist was lazy, stupid, and really abrupt. Almost like the (and I loosely use the term) writers couldn't be bothered to finish the story.

-Passable dialogue.

-Unscary.

-Uneven pace with poor payoff.

-A man who let's his daughter draw all over the walls like a crude caveman is doomed anyway. Maybe if he'd been more strict with her she'd never have been possessed or persuaded or what ever the hell made that b*tch hack her family up.

To conclude: it was poor. But it's not implausible to me that people should like it; as a casual movie goer its easy to like and perhaps it's just because a deeply cynical human being that I dislike it and can see so numerous and blatant flaws. So, if other recent mainstream horrors like Insidious and Paranormal Activity entertain you, this film will terrify, excite, amuse and provoke you, or, if you're a world-wearied long time horror fan whose become so desensitised to modern cinematic conventions like me, you'll be rolling your eyes, muttering under your breath and massaging your forehead at the state of modern cinema.

The Hunger Games (2012)

The Hum-Drum Games

[6/10 · 26 March 2012]

OK, firstly, I only jumped on board with the hype at the last minute, I read the first book about a week before the opening, and have yet to read the sequels and personally I do not care if adaptations stray from the source material. That's fine. It's good, it means that the script- writers, directors, actors etc. are not completely brain dead, so any review comparing the two materials is just redundant as literature and film are two different mediums that cannot be compared.

The film:

Acting: 7/10 I don't get the hype over Jennifer Lawrence. She was good, but not amazing. They could have done worse; she held her own over the show and I must admit she didn't screw up so credit is due there, most of the other actors were sub par, but again, didn't screw up too badly. Little Rue held her own and her death scene was quite powerful, but was ruined by the lack of violence (I'll explain my problem with the whole lack of violence on it's own later), Josh Hutcherson was alright. Not as strong as Jennifer, but not as weak as Liam Hemsworth. The adult actors were not dreadful; but not amazing enough for merit.

Story: 9/10 The film's story was interesting, especially how they managed to explain every aspect fully and successfully so the film was clear and well done. It's not an original story by far, but the plot is great and it's expressed in a very universal way.

Direction: 3/10 Awfully directed in my opinion. I hate hand held camera's and the shaky- cam in this film was over used to death. My biggest hang up of this film over all is the lack of violence. Yes, I understand that to appeal to the wider audience they had to cut back on the gore, violence etc. But in my opinion they went too far. Rue's death wasn't half as impacting as it should have been, neither Cloves', Cato's, Marvel's or even Peeta's injury. They held back and the film greatly suffered and lost the majority of it's impact, stunting the story and the cohesion of the film as a whole. The directing wasn't a one because when the directer finally put away the shaky-cam for a moment the shots were nice and decent, but most of the action, albeit had to be re framed made little or no sense- case in point- Clove tackling Katniss, the actress Jenifer Lawrence had a good six inches from the angle of the camera over Clove, and with the obnoxious unrelenting of the camera movement I can give no reasonable explanation to how that little girl over powered Katniss. And when Thresh killed Clove I had roll my eyes at the blatant awfulness of the death itself. I'm not a gore hound, I admit, I might be biased: I like violence, but this film's sequences are barely coherent and sadly really ruined the viewing experience.

Overall I give this a six. Not an awful film by any standards. And maybe a re-viewing of the film again with more attentiveness on my part it could be better, or it could just be the sheer audacity of the producers to cut away much of the impact of violence ( a huge theme, I might add) for more profit revenue. Thank you Hollywood. But hey, the sets were pretty and the effects were good, well, all except Katniss' barely flaming costume.

Over and out.