Well, after another lull, I'm actually back with reviews. I'll get caught up as fast as I can. To start us off, I'm bringing you reviews for The Village and Signs as well as the two Manchurian Candidate movies. As the election nears, I'll probably get more politically slanted films reviewed. But don't worry. I'll still watch stupid, brainless stuff to counteract it all. It's the filmbrats way.
The Village
Review by Jon Waterman
***
There’s an isolated village in the middle of a forest somewhere. It’s a small community where everyone knows each other and life is almost as simple as it can be. They should be happy, right? Wrong. Instead they live in fear, because outside of the boundaries set by the elders are creatures. These mythical-looking beasts thrive on flesh and are attracted to the color red, which they see as an open invitation. After someone “lets” them in and attacks, medicine is needed from outside the village. Does anyone dare to face what’s out there waiting?
This is the latest effort by writer/director M. Night Shayamalan. This is the first movie he’s done where there isn’t an overt religious theme. Yet he still remains a one-trick pony. However, the trick is a relatively good one. He has a knack for building suspense and playing with the audience. His films aren’t really scary, but they still get the adrenaline rushing just from anticipating a scare that never really happens. His movies use cinematography to help create this mood. Roger Deakins’ work here is no exception.
One area where he sort of falls short is with the story, just like in “Signs.” It’s a functional one and it is unlike most movies you’ll see. The problem is that there’s this creation of a “twist” ending. He plays right into this making us think there’s something more than there is. Because of this, I can’t decide if the surprise is actually interesting or a cop out. A part of me thinks he’s churning them out to meet some sort of quota. But the other part thinks he’s forcing us to look at the film in a more generalized, but more important level. Rather than sensationalizing everything, the audience should view it for what it truly is.
The actors do well with what they’re given. Since they are in a turn of the century isolated community, we’re treated to ye olde dialogue. You can tell it throws some of them for a loop, but the better actors like William Hurt handle it with ease.
Don’t go in expecting another “Sixth Sense.” Night’s work has never been able to live up to that standard in terms of story since and at this point it’s unfair to assume he’ll match that anytime soon. Forget his past work and it’s easier to accept this film as a good one. No matter how you look at it, there will still be unanswered questions once it’s all said and done. It’s not Arthur Miller, but it’ll work.
+++++++
Signs
Review by Jon Waterman
**1/2
On a small town farm, some crop circles have appeared. The local officials are chalking it up to the hooligan kids playing pranks. After all, everyone knows it’s a hoax, right? Reverend Hess tries to calm his young kids down when more circles appear not only in their cornfields, but also simultaneously around the world. Are the local boys in on some sort of worldwide sham, or could something else be going on?
Writer/director M. Night Shyamalan must be running out of ideas. If he really wanted to make a movie about crop circles, he’s about twenty-five years too late. There’s a reason we don’t hear about them anymore. Everyone knows how they are done and it’s not fun anymore. But he’s not really making a movie about crop circles. It’s about the reactions to them and all of that stuff. It’s just a lame cover story for the emotional core. I also didn’t like that he created this hype and hysteria within the film. Why mess with the twist in the plot? Just put it all out in the open, and let the characters deal with that and it would have been just as effective without some of the disappointment. The problem is he thinks he has to put a surprise in each movie to stay consistent with himself. If he really wants to grow as a writer (and maybe he doesn’t), then he should start exploring different avenues and storytelling methods.
The similarities between this film and “Night of the Living Dead” are pretty apparent, but I think “NLD” does a better job handling the paranoia and the changes in personality. There’s more media coverage here, but I don’t know how much it actually fuels the audience. It certainly is the main argument behind the characters’ moves. What it does do is allow us to see that this is in fact not an isolated incident while allowing us to stay isolated with the family.
There are a lot of issues of faith here. The dad used to be a Reverend in this religious community. All the recent events have taken a toll on the entire family. The two kids are obsessed with learning about what’s going on. By the way, the kids don’t act normal. They have this creepy “Children of the Corn” thing going on. I guess that’s what the farm life does to some people. It’s interesting to see the emotional breakdowns that go on and the irrationality that can stem from what could be an innocent event. Even though I’ve criticized the storytelling, there is a worthwhile emotional storyline here that doesn’t deserve to be clouded in the supernatural fluff.
M. Night could be a great director. He has a reasonable command over the visual aspect and he works well with the actors to get what he wants from them. He just needs to break away from this fake twist ending stuff. He needs to stop hiding behind this standard he’s set for himself, put everything out in the open right away and let it all develop naturally from there. That way you can avoid disappointment and have a more solid movie. This won’t blow anyone away, so don’t expect a surprise of any kind and you may be able to enjoy it more.
++++++
The Manchurian Candidate (1962)
Review by Jon Waterman
****
The quick thinking and good fighting of one man, Raymond Shaw, save a group of American soldiers fighting in Korea. He returns to the US and is awarded the Medal of Honor for his work. The other men in the platoon return to the US with swirling confused thoughts in their heads. They, including commanding officer Major Bennett Marco, are having dreams of being captured and brainwashed by the Koreans. They believe that the “heroic” mission actually never happened and there may be something bigger political conspiracy in the works with an election coming up. Can the difference between paranoia and truth be pieced together before it’s too late?
I’ll let you in on a little secret. They were captured and brainwashed. You’ll learn that very early on in the film. What makes the story so compelling and suspenseful isn’t the mystery of if it happened, but rather why it happened and how the whole thing will play out. George Axlerod’s adaptation of Richard Condon’s novel is very solid. We’re given the right information at the right time. We’re left in the dark as much as Marco, who’s investigating the ordeal. We’re treated to little surprises throughout to tease us until the big plot points are revealed.
One of the most interesting things about the film is that it continues to be suspenseful and intriguing even though the pace is relatively slow. There is no non-stop action. Events are absorbed, not merely stated. Director John Frankenheimer uses long shots with large pauses in dialogue frequently, letting the visuals speak for themselves. The audience becomes just as much of a detective as Marco. You can also attribute this to the editing of Ferris Webster, who does a remarkable job on this film. The brainwashing scene brilliantly cuts between what the soldiers believe is happening (an old lady giving a presentation about flowers) and what is really happening (the presenter showing off the conquest of the minds to various foreign representatives). It’s more menacing and chilling hearing the old lady tell Shaw to shoot his fellow soldier than if it was the doctor.
The acting is magnificent as well. Laurence Harvey as Shaw refuses to let us into his mind even when providing us with key background information. He forges a character that you want to like, but, because of his distance, can’t. Frank Sinatra as Marco is understated and thorough in his portrayal. He doesn’t go off the deep end questioning his dreams but rather deals with it all introspectively. Angela Lansbury plays Shaw’s mother who is domineering and intrusive. She is the true standout here. She’s ruthless and cold, but there’s still that underlying sense of misguided love. You can’t stand her, but you respect her capabilities. Her screen presence is one of the most disturbing yet fascinating performances I’ve seen.
The script is great. The directing is great. The editing is great. The acting is great. The music is a little obtrusive at beginning, but otherwise is appropriately haunting. The ending will leave you in disarray. In short, this is one of the best political thrillers out there.
++++++++
The Manchurian Candidate (2004)
Review by Jon Waterman
***1/2
The quick thinking and good fighting of one man, Raymond Shaw, save a group of American soldiers fighting in the Gulf War. He returns to the US and is awarded the Medal of Honor for his work. The other men in the platoon return to the US with swirling confused thoughts in their heads. They, including commanding officer Major Bennett Marco, are having dreams where Shaw doesn’t save them all, but in fact kills the two soldiers lost in the mission. Maybe the “heroic” mission actually never happened and there’s some bigger political conspiracy in the works – there is an election coming up after all. Can the difference between paranoia and truth be pieced together before it’s too late?
This is a film best viewed in theaters. Director Jonathan Demme uses many frame-filling close-ups to show the building tension and imposition the characters face and/or emit. The shots are looming, but not claustrophobic. In order to get the full effect of this, the theater works best, because you’re looking up at this giant figure that’s essentially staring you down and getting into your head as if you were in the film. Watching on television would allow less connection and more distancing. With most movies it doesn’t matter, because they know it’ll be shown on a smaller screen at some point and so they don’t consider the large-scale venue. Demme and cinematographer Tak Fujimoto know how to utilize every tool at their disposal (including projection) to its fullest potential. This was made for the big screen only. Without a doubt.
I also admired how visual effects were used to impact the audience. When the subject goes under hypnosis, there are no flashy computer graphics involved. There’s nothing flashy about this film at all, actually. Instead, the screen quickly gets overexposed as the sound gives us an aural cue. It’s not the subtlest thing in the world, but it’s far from obnoxious.
Even though this is a remake of the 1962 film, it does have some differences in the script and the way everything goes down. Stuff I can’t really talk about here without giving anything away. I can say that they replaced brainwashing for implanted controlling devices, which sounds worse than it turns out to be. So, with no direct brainwashing, they get rid of any cover story. The flower presentation in the original was so enthralling and perfect that maybe it is best this effort didn’t try to recreate it. The script still conveys a lot of the same elements and core emotions of the first even after omitting or drastically changing crucial characters. It’s tough to believe that writers Daniel Pyne (“Doc Hollywood”) and Dean Georgaris (“Tomb Raider 2”) put together something so strong and nearly as intense as the classic version.
Lastly, I’ll say that the acting is great, but to some extent, it’s just playing the roles already established 40-plus years prior. Denzel Washington as Marco plays the somber Sinatra part with more fanaticism and frustration, but he’s the only one that really differs. Liev Schreiber and Meryl Streep, while still amazing actors, don’t give us anything in terms of change from their 1962 counterparts. Jeffrey Wright continues his hitting streak as a standout supporting character.
Demme does a great job of keeping the movie non-partisan by taking jabs at both sides, seemingly without favoritism. After all, the movie isn’t about one side being better than another. It’s about decent human beings fighting back against powerful, corrupt human beings. The election is essentially a side note when you think about it. I doubt I’ll ever understand the desire to remake classic films. At least this time the movie was still worth watching.
The Village
Review by Jon Waterman
***
There’s an isolated village in the middle of a forest somewhere. It’s a small community where everyone knows each other and life is almost as simple as it can be. They should be happy, right? Wrong. Instead they live in fear, because outside of the boundaries set by the elders are creatures. These mythical-looking beasts thrive on flesh and are attracted to the color red, which they see as an open invitation. After someone “lets” them in and attacks, medicine is needed from outside the village. Does anyone dare to face what’s out there waiting?
This is the latest effort by writer/director M. Night Shayamalan. This is the first movie he’s done where there isn’t an overt religious theme. Yet he still remains a one-trick pony. However, the trick is a relatively good one. He has a knack for building suspense and playing with the audience. His films aren’t really scary, but they still get the adrenaline rushing just from anticipating a scare that never really happens. His movies use cinematography to help create this mood. Roger Deakins’ work here is no exception.
One area where he sort of falls short is with the story, just like in “Signs.” It’s a functional one and it is unlike most movies you’ll see. The problem is that there’s this creation of a “twist” ending. He plays right into this making us think there’s something more than there is. Because of this, I can’t decide if the surprise is actually interesting or a cop out. A part of me thinks he’s churning them out to meet some sort of quota. But the other part thinks he’s forcing us to look at the film in a more generalized, but more important level. Rather than sensationalizing everything, the audience should view it for what it truly is.
The actors do well with what they’re given. Since they are in a turn of the century isolated community, we’re treated to ye olde dialogue. You can tell it throws some of them for a loop, but the better actors like William Hurt handle it with ease.
Don’t go in expecting another “Sixth Sense.” Night’s work has never been able to live up to that standard in terms of story since and at this point it’s unfair to assume he’ll match that anytime soon. Forget his past work and it’s easier to accept this film as a good one. No matter how you look at it, there will still be unanswered questions once it’s all said and done. It’s not Arthur Miller, but it’ll work.
+++++++
Signs
Review by Jon Waterman
**1/2
On a small town farm, some crop circles have appeared. The local officials are chalking it up to the hooligan kids playing pranks. After all, everyone knows it’s a hoax, right? Reverend Hess tries to calm his young kids down when more circles appear not only in their cornfields, but also simultaneously around the world. Are the local boys in on some sort of worldwide sham, or could something else be going on?
Writer/director M. Night Shyamalan must be running out of ideas. If he really wanted to make a movie about crop circles, he’s about twenty-five years too late. There’s a reason we don’t hear about them anymore. Everyone knows how they are done and it’s not fun anymore. But he’s not really making a movie about crop circles. It’s about the reactions to them and all of that stuff. It’s just a lame cover story for the emotional core. I also didn’t like that he created this hype and hysteria within the film. Why mess with the twist in the plot? Just put it all out in the open, and let the characters deal with that and it would have been just as effective without some of the disappointment. The problem is he thinks he has to put a surprise in each movie to stay consistent with himself. If he really wants to grow as a writer (and maybe he doesn’t), then he should start exploring different avenues and storytelling methods.
The similarities between this film and “Night of the Living Dead” are pretty apparent, but I think “NLD” does a better job handling the paranoia and the changes in personality. There’s more media coverage here, but I don’t know how much it actually fuels the audience. It certainly is the main argument behind the characters’ moves. What it does do is allow us to see that this is in fact not an isolated incident while allowing us to stay isolated with the family.
There are a lot of issues of faith here. The dad used to be a Reverend in this religious community. All the recent events have taken a toll on the entire family. The two kids are obsessed with learning about what’s going on. By the way, the kids don’t act normal. They have this creepy “Children of the Corn” thing going on. I guess that’s what the farm life does to some people. It’s interesting to see the emotional breakdowns that go on and the irrationality that can stem from what could be an innocent event. Even though I’ve criticized the storytelling, there is a worthwhile emotional storyline here that doesn’t deserve to be clouded in the supernatural fluff.
M. Night could be a great director. He has a reasonable command over the visual aspect and he works well with the actors to get what he wants from them. He just needs to break away from this fake twist ending stuff. He needs to stop hiding behind this standard he’s set for himself, put everything out in the open right away and let it all develop naturally from there. That way you can avoid disappointment and have a more solid movie. This won’t blow anyone away, so don’t expect a surprise of any kind and you may be able to enjoy it more.
++++++
The Manchurian Candidate (1962)
Review by Jon Waterman
****
The quick thinking and good fighting of one man, Raymond Shaw, save a group of American soldiers fighting in Korea. He returns to the US and is awarded the Medal of Honor for his work. The other men in the platoon return to the US with swirling confused thoughts in their heads. They, including commanding officer Major Bennett Marco, are having dreams of being captured and brainwashed by the Koreans. They believe that the “heroic” mission actually never happened and there may be something bigger political conspiracy in the works with an election coming up. Can the difference between paranoia and truth be pieced together before it’s too late?
I’ll let you in on a little secret. They were captured and brainwashed. You’ll learn that very early on in the film. What makes the story so compelling and suspenseful isn’t the mystery of if it happened, but rather why it happened and how the whole thing will play out. George Axlerod’s adaptation of Richard Condon’s novel is very solid. We’re given the right information at the right time. We’re left in the dark as much as Marco, who’s investigating the ordeal. We’re treated to little surprises throughout to tease us until the big plot points are revealed.
One of the most interesting things about the film is that it continues to be suspenseful and intriguing even though the pace is relatively slow. There is no non-stop action. Events are absorbed, not merely stated. Director John Frankenheimer uses long shots with large pauses in dialogue frequently, letting the visuals speak for themselves. The audience becomes just as much of a detective as Marco. You can also attribute this to the editing of Ferris Webster, who does a remarkable job on this film. The brainwashing scene brilliantly cuts between what the soldiers believe is happening (an old lady giving a presentation about flowers) and what is really happening (the presenter showing off the conquest of the minds to various foreign representatives). It’s more menacing and chilling hearing the old lady tell Shaw to shoot his fellow soldier than if it was the doctor.
The acting is magnificent as well. Laurence Harvey as Shaw refuses to let us into his mind even when providing us with key background information. He forges a character that you want to like, but, because of his distance, can’t. Frank Sinatra as Marco is understated and thorough in his portrayal. He doesn’t go off the deep end questioning his dreams but rather deals with it all introspectively. Angela Lansbury plays Shaw’s mother who is domineering and intrusive. She is the true standout here. She’s ruthless and cold, but there’s still that underlying sense of misguided love. You can’t stand her, but you respect her capabilities. Her screen presence is one of the most disturbing yet fascinating performances I’ve seen.
The script is great. The directing is great. The editing is great. The acting is great. The music is a little obtrusive at beginning, but otherwise is appropriately haunting. The ending will leave you in disarray. In short, this is one of the best political thrillers out there.
++++++++
The Manchurian Candidate (2004)
Review by Jon Waterman
***1/2
The quick thinking and good fighting of one man, Raymond Shaw, save a group of American soldiers fighting in the Gulf War. He returns to the US and is awarded the Medal of Honor for his work. The other men in the platoon return to the US with swirling confused thoughts in their heads. They, including commanding officer Major Bennett Marco, are having dreams where Shaw doesn’t save them all, but in fact kills the two soldiers lost in the mission. Maybe the “heroic” mission actually never happened and there’s some bigger political conspiracy in the works – there is an election coming up after all. Can the difference between paranoia and truth be pieced together before it’s too late?
This is a film best viewed in theaters. Director Jonathan Demme uses many frame-filling close-ups to show the building tension and imposition the characters face and/or emit. The shots are looming, but not claustrophobic. In order to get the full effect of this, the theater works best, because you’re looking up at this giant figure that’s essentially staring you down and getting into your head as if you were in the film. Watching on television would allow less connection and more distancing. With most movies it doesn’t matter, because they know it’ll be shown on a smaller screen at some point and so they don’t consider the large-scale venue. Demme and cinematographer Tak Fujimoto know how to utilize every tool at their disposal (including projection) to its fullest potential. This was made for the big screen only. Without a doubt.
I also admired how visual effects were used to impact the audience. When the subject goes under hypnosis, there are no flashy computer graphics involved. There’s nothing flashy about this film at all, actually. Instead, the screen quickly gets overexposed as the sound gives us an aural cue. It’s not the subtlest thing in the world, but it’s far from obnoxious.
Even though this is a remake of the 1962 film, it does have some differences in the script and the way everything goes down. Stuff I can’t really talk about here without giving anything away. I can say that they replaced brainwashing for implanted controlling devices, which sounds worse than it turns out to be. So, with no direct brainwashing, they get rid of any cover story. The flower presentation in the original was so enthralling and perfect that maybe it is best this effort didn’t try to recreate it. The script still conveys a lot of the same elements and core emotions of the first even after omitting or drastically changing crucial characters. It’s tough to believe that writers Daniel Pyne (“Doc Hollywood”) and Dean Georgaris (“Tomb Raider 2”) put together something so strong and nearly as intense as the classic version.
Lastly, I’ll say that the acting is great, but to some extent, it’s just playing the roles already established 40-plus years prior. Denzel Washington as Marco plays the somber Sinatra part with more fanaticism and frustration, but he’s the only one that really differs. Liev Schreiber and Meryl Streep, while still amazing actors, don’t give us anything in terms of change from their 1962 counterparts. Jeffrey Wright continues his hitting streak as a standout supporting character.
Demme does a great job of keeping the movie non-partisan by taking jabs at both sides, seemingly without favoritism. After all, the movie isn’t about one side being better than another. It’s about decent human beings fighting back against powerful, corrupt human beings. The election is essentially a side note when you think about it. I doubt I’ll ever understand the desire to remake classic films. At least this time the movie was still worth watching.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home