#37 Review For ‘Drag Me To Hell’

“Superb”
* * * * *

Director
Sam Raimi

Cast
Alison Lohman
Justin Long
Lorna Raver

Screenplay

Sam Raimi
Ivan Raimi

Certification

15

Running Time

98min

Are you ready to be scared? If your answers is no, then I strongly advise you don’t go and see Drag Me To Hell. I personally didn’t think that it would be a scary film but have some bits that might be the light jump. But the Raimi brothers didn’t disappoint. It was a very scary movie. It got to the point where you could expect it but still literally jump out of your seat. And this being the first horror film I’ve seen in a cinema (not including Let The Right One In), I was so happy that it was Drag Me To Hell.

So the story is about Christine Brown (Lohman) as she fights for a job promotion against co-worker Stu (Lee) for their bosses love. However after Christine tries to look good in front of her boss by evicting an old decrypted gypsy woman from her LA house, Christine finds out that you don’t piss off old gypsy women. Then after being cursed in the parking lot of the Bank, Christine begins to discover that hell is a real place and somewhere she’ll be going unless she can save her soul.

This is a bold statement, but I’m going to go as far as to say this is one of the best if not the best film I’ve seen this year. That partially is because I am a Raimi fan-boy however it exceeded all expectations of myself and my co-cinema going.

As every review is saying: if you’re a Evil Dead fan you’ll obviously enjoy it but that doesn’t cut it. I think that every horror fan needs to see this film, at least twice. That’s why I’m planning on seeing it again. I don’t go to see movies twice in the cinema but I’m really looking forward to seeing it a second time.

So as expected the cinematography is up to scratch for a Raimi film. You can tell it’s a Raimi film by the quick zooms, which is a dying camera trick which works perfectly for horror films and the camera turns as they turn 90 degrees to show the atmosphere and strangeness to the frame. If the film was shot in a static way without the quick zooms when Genush (Raver) jumps on Christine, then the scare factor would go way down.

Now the acting. Alison Lohman was a great choice to play Christine, I felt she inhabited the role excellently then Ellen Page would have (Ellen Page was first asked to fill the role). Justin Long who plays Christine’s loving boyfriend also did an amazing job. I personally didn’t like him before because Jeepers Creepers left a bad taste in my mouth but after this he seems like he can actually do a good film (yes Die Hard 0.4 was terrible and you know it). But the script was written so well that Christine and Clay (Long) seem like the two nicest and normal people in the world so then the horror comes in you generally feel bad and connected to them. And the first time we see Genush I thought she seemed like a lovely old woman. Which leads me onto Lorna Raver. She acted a horrible mean ol’ hag so well she was believable. If I saw her walking down the street I would turn and run for my life. The only thing I was disappointed with was that Bruce Campbell didn’t have a cameo which made me sad but that was it’s only floor.

So after the last film I saw was Synecdoche, New York, it’s really nice to see a film that was made right. Kaufman take notes from Raimi. To be honest I think Raimi shouldn’t work on superhero films anymore and work hard on that Evil Dead 4 script. The mix of horror and humour work so well that it’ll keep incising new audience who might not see it. If you don’t see this flick, Raimi will drag you to hell!

Drag Me To Hell 720p HD trailer

Oliver Hunt

#37 Review For ‘Synecdoche, New York’

* *

Director
Charlie Kaufman
Cast

Phillip Seymour Hoffman
Catherine Keener
Samantha Mortan
Screenplay
Charlie Kaufman

Certification

15

Running Time
124 min

*Spoiler Alert*

As you can tell, this is my lowest rated film of the year so far. And what you might be able to see with this film is that there will be a division between reviewers. Personally I felt like two stars was the maximum amount of stars I could give it. This film is just one of those films that people love or hate. And I hated it. I even drew a picture of the director Charlie Kaufman and what he means to me. Lets get started.

Synecdoche, New York follows the life of Caden Cotard (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), a manic depressant play writer. Left by his wife and finding little comfort in therapy and after some loveless relationships gets grant money to do whatever he wants. Hiring a huge cast he sets out to make a play about the “brutal honesty” of his life.

So the film, from the outside, looks to be an intellectual roller-coaster ride of surrealist film making. And it is. But it was just done horribly. First thing I want to say is that I loved Spike Jonze’s Being John Malkovich which was writing by the Kaufman him self. So I don’t have a vendetta against him, I was actually looking forward to this film and expected it to be a defined five stars. The negatives out way the posterities by a lot so its such a shame to see a film with great potential.

Ok so why is the film bad you ask? Well to start with, all the scenes in the film aren’t longer then five minutes. The film rushes along as if it is trying to get to something important. Which I guess was the indoors city. There was so much to take in, I have forgotten a vast majority of the story. Also because the story rushed by it as hard to keep up with characters. Sometimes there are years between a scene, which aren’t notified so we only find out the time skip though a slightly old Caden. To me that’s poor film making, if you rely on the audience to notice the gaps between the years. After Caden’s first wife Adele leaves him with his daughter of four Olive to run away to Germany to pursue a life of art, then the hole film goes to pure madness (and not the good Evil Dead type madness). You can’t tell whether Caden is in Germany or in New York. And New York isn’t even mentioned or notified it’s just there in the distance.

Then the film becomes twisted as Caden watches his naked tattooed daughter dancing in a strip club for him. The film just dissolves into “what where you thinking”, like when Caden’s PA (or love interest of the time) buys a burning house which isn’t a metaphor for something, the characters even talk about it. What’s that all about? Towards the end of the film it just gets stupid as the actors of the real characters get actors them selves, it just becomes a world in a world in a world in a world. And the end fifteen minutes are rushed and ridicules. Some noise is heard outside and when he goes out the next day people are dead. Not explained why. They’re just dead. It was a terrible ending to a bazaar film

I decided to draw a picture (above) of Charlie Kaufman with the screenplay for Synecdoche, New York. Notice how pages of madness come out of his massive head even though the script is written. The film just felt like several scripts stuck together, but was accepted because it’s a Kaufman script. He’s always been know to write weird screenplays but this just shows that he should stop. What Kaufman is in need of is an editor and a producer who will tell him what not to do. This film is just a product of too much freedom. If toned down and had the fat trimmed off a lot of it, it could have been a more enjoyable film. Synecdoche, New York was the first time I’ve considered walking out because the film out stayed it’s welcome. I has hoping he died because he did nothing. And he wasn’t a character to sympathise with because he was so unlikable and boring.

Ok now something’s I like about the film. For a start Phillip Seymour Hoffman was very good in it. It could even be seen as his crowning achievement because even though I disliked the character he acted surprisingly well. That’s the first star. Now the second star is for the cinematography. For a debut film it was pulled off well. Even though I hated the film I was admiring the camera work (not the editing). And that’s the only two pluses, I am not even going to go into it. That’s it.

Being honest I just think this is a cult film. In twenty years I could look back and be like what was I thinking it’s a brilliant film. But now I just thought it was poorly executed. And as I said yes earlier it will get divided opinions among reviews so it’s something you as the reader are going to have to watch yourself and decided if you like it or not.

Depressant. Green poo. Small canvases. Stalkers. Germany. Lesbians. Suicide. Death Of A Salesman. Incestuous strip tease. Pink box. Breaking and cleaning. That doesn’t make sense and neither does this film.

Oliver Hunt

#36 Cannes Film Festival Is In Full Swing: Day 2

A few posts back I listed the films that would be at this years top French film festival. This post is all about what I have heard about the films from sites like Total Film and Empire Online among others. Hopefully someday I’ll be there with either a film of my own or reporting on future films. Well lets get started with the film that open the festival.

Well Pixar’s Up was the first film to be shown and is SUPER 3D! Well from what I heard it sounds pretty good. Apparently from an video review on Total Film, the first twenty five minutes is the best thing Pixar has done. But hold the phone. Didn’t people say that about Pixar’s last box office hit Wall-E? The answer being yes. But what seems to happen with Pixar film is that they want to look like grown ups (pun intended) but sell out there films after forty minutes of so with cheap childish jokes. I guess the target audiences are seven year olds but come on. At least make one Arthouse film. Pixar could be the western Studio Ghibli. Think about it.

Secondly, Humpday was shown today. Humpday starts Mark Duplass and someone homeless looking guy, as they do gay porn which is “so gay it’s not gay” or something. Anyways it’s the latest mumblecore film to come out of America so I’m going to try see that somewhere (if it comes to England). I also like the Duplass brothers who are best known for their mumblecore films; The Puffy Chair and Baghead, which I recommend. Apart from four people walking out the film is said to be good. The sex scenes are also not graphic like Ang Lee’s Brokeback Mountain so I can’t see why people would walk out?

On the 24th May, the jury announces the winners so check back around then to get my thoughts on the winners plus news on the other films.

Oliver Hunt

#35 Review For 'Star Trek'

* * * *

Director
J.J. Abrams

Cast

Chris Pine

Zachary Quinto

Leonard Nimoy

Screenplay

Roberto Orci
Alex Kurtzman

Certification

12a

Running Time

126min

This blog contains * Spoilers *!

It’s that time of the year again, when the summer starts and all the blockbusters start to flow out of Hollywood. We have X-Men Origins Wolverine, Angels & Demons, Terminator Salvation and Transformers 2 to look forward to. And the first film I saw in this high explosive month was J.J. Abram’s Star Trek. Now first thing I’m going to mention is that I am in no way a so called ‘Trekky’, so this is from a purely outsider view on it. I did however, watch Star Trek: Enterprise with Patrick Stewart and I thought it was ok at best. Anyway the only thing I have really liked from J.J. Abram was his 2008 monstermentuary Cloverfield which he produced. I personally loved Cloverfield and thought it was a good step forward in monster movies, but is this going to follow in the wake of his success?

If you compare the cinematography from Star Trek to Abram’s other film titled movie Mission Impossible 3, you can tell that’s he’s really developed his skills. I was a fan of the Mission Impossible franchise up until I saw IM: 2 (Mission Impossible 2) directed by the great John Woo. I felt that MI:3 was sloppy and easily forgotten, it felt more like a long trailer then a movie because the dialogues were boring but the action was pretty good. But that’s not enough to make a good movie in my books.

Back to Star Trek, even though this film is a reboot of the old franchise (this being the eleventh film), the story is actually quite impressive. For a Start Trek film it doesn’t get bugged down with its incredible back story. Apart from few references to the original Star trek series, new audiences are welcomed in. The film kicks off with a big space battle steeped in special effects to emphasise that they are indeed in space and there will be space fights. After a pointless introduction to Kirk (Pine) and Spock’s (Quinto), which involves them rebelling before their paths cross at a Space Academy. Soon follows an attack on Spock’s home planet of Vulcan, both Kirk and Spock (whilst being at each others necks) fight an evil space miner Nero out for revenge on Spock.

Now let’s move onto the review; cinematography was very creative for what could be perceived as a regular mainstream blockbuster. J.J. Abram not only kept the plot interesting, but also the cinematography and mise en scene. The sets were unlike Star Wars (episodes I-III) which was just lame CG, its really looked good. The only thing that was a recurring nightmare was in ever few slates (when on the Star Ship Enterprise), there would be a very bright light that would draw notice. This is a problem you would have to see for yourself but after the film I had a headache. But that was its only fault.

The casting was pretty damn impressive. Chris Pine’s ‘James Kirk’ looked similar to the James Kirk ‘William Shatner’ portrayed, but the real brilliance falls with Zachary Quinto and Leonard Nimoy. When Spock Prime meets with Spock at the end, their looks are so close that it’s weird. But the cast was an interesting one. John Cho, known for Harold and Kumar films, plays Hikaru Sulu and Simon Pegg plays Scotty (for the last half an hour of the film).

Now onto my complaints; first one is how hard is it design an enemy space ship that isn’t generic. The Starship Enterprise is a nice sleek space ship with floors you can eat off. However Nero’s mining ship is a ugly, dirty, sweaty ship with lots of spikes that wouldn’t pass inspection. Anton Yelchin’s (Pavel Chekov) accent is strained which is curious because he’s from the USSR, so why does his accents sound so put on? Now onto the last and maybe worst? When Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman where penning the script, they seemed to hate Kirk’s character. He’s just the most unlikable character in the film. So when Spock beats him up after Vulcan is destroyed and his mother (Ryder) killed, I felt a lot happier. He’s the type of character who’s an obnoxious womaniser who gets ever thing he wants.

To some up all everything I really liked this film and would happily watch it again at the cinema or even buy it on DVD in the following much. The special effects were excellent, script was remarkably good and even though you would think the film ticks of the list of generic clichés, it actually doesn’t. If you’re not a Trekky then you’ll be one step closer to becoming one. The film is going to be one of the best blockbusters of the year and will get you splitting you fingers and saying-

“Live long and prosper!”

Oliver Hunt

#34 The Cinematic Experience

We all go to the cinema. From young to old, we as a nation can’t help ourselves but go to escape from the harsh realities of everyday life. But what is it that makes us pay ridicules sums of money but not only for the ticket but also for the refreshments. Could it be that we are tired of society and need to escape to some of our wildest imaginations? However there’s definitely something that keeps us all going back for more in stead of waiting for the DVD release, but what could it be? In this I explore what the importance of cinema experience is and I ask the question ‘how important for audiences is the sensation offer by the cinema experience?’

What is the sensation of the cinema experience? The cinema sensation and experience is a wide range of things. From the beginning trailers and adverts on a big screen to the cliché popcorn that has become pop culture. I personally go to the cinema because I see the film industry as an art work, with every film-maker creating their very own ‘Mona Lisa’ to catch the lime light. With new technologies not only in the cinema but with the mise en scene and cinematography, it brings in new audiences to see the incredible sets and costumes that can only be see in the movies. However it is not the film alone that creates the experience. The other features such as surround sound and even the bigger screen contributes to the reason audiences choose to make the trip to there local multiplex or Arthouse cinema. That it’s self is one of the sensations of modern cinema.

I’m not sure about other peoples experience but this is a little taste of what me cinema experience is. Upon walking into a multiplex or a multiscreen anywhere, I look around only to be greeted by crowds of people who are all waiting for their tickets to the latest blockbuster. Whilst I’d like to just see the latest independent film. I stroll over to the back of the obnoxious line, idly looking at the latest movie poster and watching trailers on a small screen. After I have reached the ticket desk and have paid half my hard earned money (sorry I couldn’t say that with a straight face), on my ticket. I glance over to my watch and see I have a limited time and quickly head over to the refreshments section and pay even more for a medium size box of popcorn. Now I am ready to sit down for a couple of hours and be entertained. After the coughing the kid kicking my chair and several people talking thought the film I walk out and head home. If I am with company then I will discuss it on the trip home nit picking at all the good and bad things.

On the contrary there are some negatives that contribute to the overall sensation of the cinema. Something that really is a disadvantage at cinemas in the UK is the people you are sitting with for the duration of the film. Manly in multiplexes you get a lot of unappreciative audience members, who discard others in the audience and are persistent on talking and giggling between themselves. Also it’s a cliché that you get the coughers to your side, the kid behind you kicking the back of your chair and finally to complete it is the person in front of you that must have been the tallest in his class.

I asked a friend what he thought of the whole-film going experience. Firstly, my friend is not like me in the respect that he is not an eager movie goer like myself, however he does have his moments. Anyway, I was curious of why a non-film fanatic would make the trip instead of just waiting for the DVD release. Of the very short interview we had, he used the words, viewing with friends, popcorn, sticky people, picture quality and exiting. Most of the words used, didn’t relate exactly to the cinema,
Oliver Hunt 2

on the other hand I sort of got the joist of it. He even added a interesting point such as “everyone has a similar goal”, which is indeed an interesting point to make but what goal is that? Could it be to find out if the protagonist ends up living happily ever after?

Could it be that the cinema sensation is over rated? That we only go because we are moulded by society to believe that the cinema experience is the best way to view films? However maybe all the negatives are subconsciously seen in a sort of comforting thing, as if you were a home you know what to expect? Because why couldn’t the DVD experience be the new cinema experience? With HD DVD and Blue Ray DVDs on sale and surround sound with massive TV screens the audience and truly enjoy the cinetography of a film. But that wouldn’t be the cinematic experience we grew up in, it would be like not going to war because you can play it on a video game.

Something that has attracted audiences to cinema screens around the world is the new technologies with the film going experiences. For example the first permanent IMAX cinema was set up in Toronto at Ontario Place in 1971 and is still in use. With IMAX and 3D cinemas popping up around the country it is incising new audiences because it truly is a different experience to a normal multiscreen because of the high quality and even images that come out of the screen. This appeals to kids more the adults because they can watch all there favorite characters like Shrek in 3D and have the image come out at them. A lot of big name directors such as James Cameron and Tim Burton are now preparing to make the jump to 3D cinema. However the main thing with film technology is where you see the film. In a less wealth country they might show films on projectors on a wall outside instead of in a big dark room, but still it attracts audiences.

Maybe going to the cinema is such a big thing around the world because we go with friends and family to be entertained. The reason we enjoy it is the experience of it. The popcorn and cup of Pepsi, the small chairs, the annoying people who talk all the way through and the trailers at the beginning that look fantastic on a massive screen instead of a ordinary computer screen. I think the sensation that keeps attracting more and more people is the excitement of the film, if it is a action the surround sound and the big screen make the audience feel as if there are on the battle field. If it a romantic flick then the audience forgets that they them self’s are alone on valentines day. Cinema controls audiences emotions by fazing out everything else, and I believe that is the sensation of why people go to the cinema because at home the phone rings the door bell goes and it breaks the concentration.

Oliver Hunt