Cinemaniac Reviews

Give five minutes. Save two hours.

Guest Post: A new kind of Scary Movie

We always wonder today why “horror movies” just aren’t scary, but do we ever wonder what could be scary? My first guest post ever is an analysis from Mr. Eddie D. Shackleford, who takes a look at how a drama or a thriller could be ten times scarier than an actual “horror movie”:

A new kind of Scary Movie

by Eddie D. Shackleford

The classic scary movies usually follow the same tried and true formula. Combine one villain with a group of unsuspecting people, add a signature weapon and wreak havoc until only one brave victim is still standing. Rinse, repeat. But it seems like more recently, audiences are feeling fearful from a different kind of scary movie – one that feels a lot more real. Gone are the days of a chainsaw bearing vagabond hacking his way through town. The new kind of scary movie is not necessarily horror by genre, but realistic thrillers that leave audiences wondering, “What if that happened to me?”

side_effects_ver2

Side Effects
Why is it scary? Prescription Drugs.
In today’s world, antidepressant medications are common, especially for middle aged Americans. According to a recent study about antidepressants from the National Center for Health, antidepressants are the most common medications prescribed to adults ages 18-44. Perhaps that’s why Side Effects feels eerie to so many viewers. The 2013 movie follows Emily Taylor through her struggle with depression, eventually leading to two botched suicide attempts. After seeking treatment from a new psychiatrist, Emily starts to trial a host of different antidepressant medications. But when she murders her husband, her psychiatrist goes on the chopping block. Could the latest drug trial have produced violent side effects? Although a conspiracy plot eventually unfolds, the movie leaves a question lingering for viewers. How much do we know about the side effects of our medication?

taken

Taken
Why is it scary? Kidnapping.

Taken follows the emotional journey of a desperate father searching for his daughter after she is kidnapped during a trip to France. Bryan Mills, played by Liam Neeson, uses his investigative prowess as an ex-CIA agent to follow his daughter’s kidnappers through Europe. He eventually discovers that his daughter has been taken by human sex traffickers. It’s not so much the action of the plot that seems scary. There are only a few action scenes in the film and minimal violence, nothing like the typical mass murder horror films of the past. This time it’s the serious nature of the content that leaves the audience in fear. Kidnapping and human trafficking are real, and after watching Taken you can’t help but be a little anxious about the possibility that the same thing could happen to you or a loved one. Look for the next chapter of the saga in Taken 2, playing On Demand and available to rent.

110237_glg

The Impossible
Why is it scary? Natural Disasters.
There’s nothing quite as terrifying as a natural disaster, especially one that comes without any warning. The Impossible documents the terror of a tourist family separated during the devastation of the 2004 Thailand tsunami. According to National Geographic, the tsunami killed more than 150,000 people in one day and left millions homeless. Perhaps it’s the reality of the actual devastation that makes The Impossible feel so unsettling.  From the moment the wave hits, viewers are taken on an emotional ride that hits close to home as two halves of the family search desperately for each other amongst the ruin. There are no wild chase scenes, and no gore. But the thought of losing a family member during a national tragedy leaves viewers uneasy and wondering not if, but when something so terrifying could happen again.

So what’s scarier: watching a world takeover by an army of raging zombies, or a pseudo reality thriller that seems like it could unfold in real life at any minute? You decide.

Eddie D. Shackleford is a Senior Editor, writer and blogger for DirectTVDeal and loves to write about Horror movies, TV and entertainment. You can follow Eddie @Eddie20Ford.

#Fedoracast – Episode #0004

New #Fedoracast episode linked below…

#Fedoracast

Obstruction #1

The5ObstructionsBlogathon1 (1)

I have taken part in a blogathon created by Nostra over at Myfilmviews.  It’s called the 5 Obstructions, and the idea is inspired by a documentary of the same name (which I’d never heard of).  The idea is to break out of your comfort zone as a film blogger, once a month for five months.

Obstruction 1 went up June 1st.  The idea is:

Obstruction1

So here I go.  I shall now negatively review Fargo, a movie I love half to death.  (If you want my actual review, please click here.)

Please note that since this won’t count as “Review No. 494,” as it is more of an “I’m completely joking about how I feel about this film,” as opposed to an “I’m being dead-serious about how I feel about this film.” Also, I haven’t seen the movie since January, when I re-watched it on Blu-Ray, so my “review” may not be as good as it may have been when I’d just watched it. Plus, I’m writing the exact opposite of what I feel, so it’s not going to be that great anyway. Still, lots of fun to write. Anyway, here it is (hit the jump).

Read more…

Kundun

Review No. 493

The Dalai Lama is important, but this movie believes otherwise.

MPW-37758

C

DIRECTED BY MARTIN SCORSESE. PRODUCED BY BARBARA DE FINA.  WRITTEN BY MELISSA MATHISON. DALAI LAMA PORTRAYED BY TENZIN THUTHOB TSARONG (ADULT), GYURME TETHONG (AGE 12), TULKU JAMYANG KUNGA TENZIN (AGE 5), AND TENZIN YESHI PAICHANG (AGE 2). ALSO STARRING TENCHO GYALPO, TENZIN TOPJAR, TSEWANG MIGYUR KHANGSAR, TENZIN LODOE, TSERING LHAMO, GESHI YESHI GYATSO, LOBSANG GYATSO, SONAM PHUNTSOK, GYATSO LUKHANG, LOBSANG SAMTEN, TSEWANG JIGME TSARONG, TENZIN TRINLEY, ROBERT LIN, JURME WANGDA, AND JILL HSIA. DISTRIBUTED BY BUENA VISTA PICTURES ON DECEMBER 25, 1997. PRODUCED IN ENGLISH BY THE UNITED STATES. RUNS 2 HOURS, 14 MINUTES. RATED PG-13 BY THE MPAA, FOR VIOLENT IMAGES.

KUNDUN WAS WATCHED ON JUNE 5, 2013.

“Sleep is the best meditation.” –Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama

Martin Scorsese can shock you with a good movie. His oeuvre is composed mainly of films you expect to be outstanding, and they turn out even better. He can shock you even more with something as simple as a good scene. The climactic moments of Goodfellas, for example. His biggest shocks, though, are when he makes a movie that’s less-than-tolerable. It rarely happens, but when does it happen, the lack of effort leaves you speechless with disappointment. He first did this in 1972 with Boxcar Bertha. Granted, that wasn’t exactly his film. It was a crime flick that he directed, but it had B-movie trash producer Roger Corman written all over it.

A movie like Kundun is especially disappointing because it’s something Scorsese typically does better than any director. Scorsese is one of very few who uses his creative license wisely when he goes to work on a biopic. He makes the characters his own by, first, telling about what they accomplished and, more importantly, making us really care about them. We just don’t care about a man who’s made to seem perfect. That’s why we have the psychotic boxer Jake LaMotta (Raging Bull), not the champion boxer Jake LaMotta; and why we have the Howard Hughes who became an entrepreneur because he was a control freak (The Aviator), not the Howard Hughes who was just an entrepreneur.

Behold!  His Holiness, the 14th Dalai Lama, hath come to bore us all to tears!

Behold! His Holiness, the 14th Dalai Lama, hath come to bore us all to tears!

If directing is defined as standing somewhere among the crew members during production, while he decides what to have for dinner, then Scorsese did indeed direct Kundun. The movie has the entire “flawed character” motif down. Written by Melissa Mathison and doctored by the film’s subject himself, the screenplay offers the Fourteenth Dalai Lama as a character we should care about. But we don’t. The lack of care is obvious in the first ten minutes of the film. It’s the sort of sequence you can tell was in the screenplay, but as Scorsese (for whatever reason) doesn’t seem to care about the character, he calls the shots based on an interpretation that we shouldn’t care either.

The scene features a servant of the recently-deceased Thirteenth Dalai Lama finding two-year-old Tenzin Gyatso in his home and, after meeting him, proclaiming that he must become the Fourteenth Dalai Lama when he comes of age; he visits seven years later to consult Gyatso once more. The reason this scene isn’t moving is because it’s not taken solemnly. The ultimate presentation of these ten minutes is basically identical, but emotionally, it’s somewhere between bizarrely unrealistic and unintentionally funny. We have what appears to be a strange, desperate man, walking into a Tibetan household; noticing a child of nine and his obsession with having power, as is natural for an arrogant nine-year-old; and telling him that he will be whisked away so that in six years, he can rule an entire nation. It’s like watching a random passerby walk into an orphanage and ask Oliver Twist if he wants to become the Prime Minister of England. He probably does, but at his innocent, uninformed age, what does he know about the responsibilities?

Kundun isn’t a bad movie, but it would take significant generosity to call it a good one. Editing, music, and cinematography make the historical account look like the work of David Lean. Perhaps Lean would have gotten his hands on it first, if only he hadn’t passed away six years prior; the essential difference between Kundun and The Bridge on the River Kwai is that the latter has a present meaning. Again, the writing clearly did offer some emotion, but only a crumb of it managed its way to the screen. We learn how arrogance led servants to patronize the 14th Dalai Lama much more than honor him. Even here, you kind of question whether or not he deserved to be patronized. We learn some of his responsibilities a bit later in the film, as far as leading a nation is concerned. I wish I could tell you what some of these duties were, but my mind–like Scorsese’s–was much more concerned with what to have for dinner.

NOTE: The film does not feature a single A-list actor, not even from around the region. The cast here does have interesting stories, though. Tenzin Thuthob Tsarong, who portrayed the 14th adult Dalai Lama, is the grandson of the 14th himself. Lobsang Samten, who portrayed the master of the kitchen, is–according to Wikipedia–”an American Tibetan scholar, sand mandala artist, former Buddhist monk, and Spiritual Director of the Tibeta Buddhist Center of Philadelphia.” The stories go on for about 90% of the cast. All very interesting, but just a year’s worth of acting lessons could have helped, too.

Obstruction #1

Enjoy my review? Please share it using one of the buttons below!

A spur-of-the-moment post for which I can’t come up with a better title.

Interest piqued? I’d assume so, if you’ve proceeded to read.

Anyway. Your mind may not be as intensely blown as mine has, but I figured I’d share, just in case.

My grandmother was over scrapbooking with my mother and her friends (their collective hobby), and she said she’d found something she wanted to show me.

To be honest, I wasn’t very excited at first. Then I got a bit excited.

“I thought you might like this,” she said.

An article about Pulp Fiction, I thought. Yes! Of course!

I read the article and noticed it said something about premiering at the New York Film Festival. Jokingly, I turned to my mother, smiled, and said, “Hey, why didn’t you take me to go see it?”

She replied: “Because you weren’t alive.”

I was a bit confused at first, but then I realized, my grandmother would be the one to save an article from October 3, 1994!!

Mind you, this isn’t just before my lifetime, this was before the film’s wide release (I thought two months, but still, eleven days). The article doesn’t make it seem like anything special. Especially when it’s really an article about several NYFF movies, just with an iconic snapshot from the Tarantino film. Still, I treasure this.

I’ve scanned it for you all; if you’d like to read it (or the 90% that you can before the printer cut it off), it’s linked to this text.

Also, there was a little blurb about the top ten at the box office.  Because I know you’d all look for that exact date archived on boxofficemojo.com; but again, I’ve included it for the fun of it:

Scan 2

Sixteen Candles

Review No. 492

A birthday movie with not a single surprise.

sixteen_candles_ver3

C-PLUS

WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY JOHN HUGHES. PRODUCED BY HILTON A. GREEN, MICHELLE MANNING, AND NED TANEN.  STARRING MOLLY RINGWALD (SAMANTHA “SAM” BAKER), PAUL DOOLEY (JIM BAKER), JUSTIN HENRY (MIKE BAKER), ANTHONY MICHAEL HALL (“THE GEEK”), MICHAEL SCHOEFFLING (JAKE RYAN), GEDDE WATANABE (LONG DUK DONG), HAVILAND MORRIS (CAROLINE MULFORD), CARLIN GLYNN (BRENDA BAKER), AND BLANCHE BAKER (GINNY BAKER). ALSO STARRING EDWARD ANDREWS, BILLIE BIRD, CAROLE COOK, MAX SHOWALTER, LIANE ALEXANDRA CURTIS, JOHN CUSACK, DARREN HARRIS, DEBORAH POLLACK, JOAN CUSACK, JOHN KAPELOS, JAMI GERTZ, BRIAN DOYLE-MURRAY, AND ZELDA RUBINSTEIN. DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PICTURES ON MAY 4, 1984. PRODUCED IN ENGLISH BY THE UNITED STATES. RUNS 1 HOUR, 33 MINUTES. RATED PG ON APPEAL BY THE MPAA (ADULT SITUATIONS, BRIEF NUDITY, PROFANITY, YOUTH SUBSTANCE USE).

SIXTEEN CANDLES WAS WATCHED ON JUNE 2, 2013.

“A geek is a guy who has everything going for him but he’s just too young. He’s got the software but he doesn’t have the hardware yet.” –John Hughes

Sixteen Candles is an episodic, frenetic potpourri of uncommon worst case scenarios. Samantha Baker (Molly Ringwald) is waking up on her sixteenth birthday, and her entire family has forgotten. They’re much more focused on her sister’s upcoming wedding, which turns out to be quite uneventful as well. Her grandparents come to visit and don’t know how not to embarrass her. She gets so absent-minded that she ends up giving her panties to an immature geek. There’s a handful of dramatic moments that give us a sympathetic outlook on her, but for the most part, this is a movie that wants to make us laugh. It does, for some time, but eventually, these scenarios grow tiresome and entirely predictable. I’ll give credit for one hopeful idea that permeates the film, but when it comes to such an obvious ending, there’s no rewarding effect.

sixteen_candles_1984

Who woulda thunk it.

This is a perfectly watchable movie; whether or not it’s enjoyable depends on your tolerance of teen comedies. The screenplay is lackluster, with characters routinely talking to themselves when someone walks out of the room, yet it sounds like a conversation. Just break the fourth wall and it won’t seem so awkward! The one saving grace is Molly Ringwald. She makes the lead character accessible and lovable, amid the ignorance of just about everyone else here. She’s the one reserved character in this demanding caricature.

Sixteen Candles was John Hughes’s debut. His next film was The Breakfast Club, a much better film. I guess this should have been my expectation. After all, James Cameron debuted with the critically panned Piranha Part Two and proceeded to direct The Terminator; Steven Spielberg debuted with a mostly forgotten comedy, The Sugarland Express, and proceeded to direct Jaws. Hughes’s Sixteen Candles did have its moments. I cracked up quite a number of times during this film. Ask me in a day or two what I was cracking up at, and that’ll be a million dollar question.

Kundun

Enjoy my review? Please share it using one of the buttons below!

Gangs of New York

Review No. 491

Need a history lesson? Take Scorsese’s.

gangs_of_new_york_ver4

A

DIRECTED BY MARTIN SCORSESE. PRODUCED BY ALBERTO GRIMALDI, HARVEY WEINSTEIN, AND BOB WEINSTEIN.  SCREENPLAY BY JAY COCKS, STEVE ZAILLIAN, AND KENNETH LONERGAN. STORY BY COCKS. STARRING LEONARDO DiCAPRIO (AMSTERDAM VALLON), DANIEL DAY-LEWIS (BILL “THE BUTCHER” CUTTING), AND CAMERON DIAZ (JENNY EVERDEANE). ALSO STARRING LIAM NEESON, JIM BROADBENT, HENRY THOMAS, BRENDAN GLEESON, GARY LEWIS, JOHN C. REILLY, STEPHEN GRAHAM, LARRY GILLARD JR., EDDIE MARSAN, ALEC McCOWEN, DAVID HEMMINGS, CARA SEYMOUR, ROGER ASHTON-GRIFFITHS, BARBARA BOUCHET, MICHAEL BYRNE, JOHN SESSIONS, RICHARD GRAHAM, AND GIOVANNI LOMBARDO RADICE. DISTRIBUTED BY MIRAMAX FILMS ON DECEMBER 20, 2002. PRODUCED IN ENGLISH BY THE UNITED STATES AND ITALY. RUNS 2 HOURS, 46 MINUTES. RATED R BY THE MPAA, FOR INTENSE STRONG VIOLENCE, SEXUALITY/NUDITY AND LANGUAGE.

GANGS OF NEW YORK WAS WATCHED ON JUNE 1, 2013.

“You see this knife? I’m gonna teach you to speak English with this f–king knife!” –”The Butcher” (Daniel Day-Lewis)

Martin Scorsese isn’t a typical director. I don’t mean he’s not mainstream. He’s actually one of the most mainstream directors out there, while also one of the most brilliant. Gangs of New York puts this on perfect display. When we think of a vengeance tale, we think of an action movie about a guy with a minor personal problem. He sets off to find the man or woman responsible, puts a bullet through there brain, and goes home as if nothing ever happened. It’s entertaining, but shallow. Scorsese presents something we haven’t seen since perhaps The Godfather.

Gangs-New-York-03

Is it time for an Edwin Starr nod again?

It is 1862. America is in its second year of civil war, and it’s been corrupted by prejudice. In the Five Points of Manhattan, the Natives gang are still warring with the Dead Rabbits, an Irish mob that they have spent decades defaming and slaughtering. Meanwhile, twentysomething Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio) is looking to get even and hold the Natives accountable for bludgeoning his father to death when he himself was merely a young child. You’d think he has the upper hand: as he was born American, he can pose as a Native, while actually a Dead Rabbit. But he also has to be careful. The man that murdered his father is still the Native leader. He’s an intelligent, aggressive man known as “The Butcher” (Daniel Day-Lewis), carrying around a shillelagh and engraving into it a notch every time he wipes a man off the face of the earth. He runs the risk of suffering the same fate as his father, as well as leaving Irish immigrants to a world of even more hatred.

Gangs of New York is a movie that goes as far as it needs to achieve reality. This film is violent, often with more brutality than any other Scorsese movie. But it’s not there to repulse. It’s there for the same reason the characters are so well developed; the same reason the actors (save for a sorely miscast Cameron Diaz) are anything but actors in costume. Amsterdam is the typical hero here. He’s able to exhibit a false sense of determination, until he meets eyes with the man he fears. Leonardo DiCaprio is a natural for this role. He’s almost always played the hero, but never once has he played a hero who wants to take control of his enemies, or is able to keep his enemies from taking control of him. Even better is the enemy himself, Daniel Day-Lewis. The man knows how to act because he knows that very little of his character is in the screenplay. His character is both lovable and detestable at the same time. There’s a scene in which he attacks Amsterdam, feeling utterly betrayed. It’s one of those rare movie moments that enrages and saddens the audience, at the same time.

Sixteen Candles

Enjoy my review? Please share it using one of the buttons below!

Army of Darkness

Review No. 490

NOTE: This review regards the director’s cut.

“Army of Darkness” forgot its weapons.

army_of_darkness

D

DIRECTED BY SAM RAIMI.  PRODUCED BY ROBERT TAPERT. WRITTEN BY SAM RAIMI AND IVAN RAIMI. STARRING BRUCE CAMPBELL (ASH WILLIAMS) AND EMBETH DAVIDTZ (SHEILA). ALSO STARRING MARCUS GILBERT, IAN ABERCROMBIE, RICHARD GROVE, TIMOTHY PATRICK QUILL, MICHAEL EARL REID, BRIDGET FONDA, PATRICIA TALLMAN, TED RAIMI, ANGELA FEATHERSTONE, NOAH GILLESPIE. DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PICTURES ON FEBRUARY 19, 1993. PRODUCED IN ENGLISH BY THE UNITED STATES. DIRECTOR’S CUT RUNS 1 HOUR, 33 MINUTES; THEATRICAL CUT RUNS 1 HOUR, 29 MINUTES. DIRECTOR’S CUT RELEASED UNRATED BY THE MPAA; THEATRICAL CUT RATED R BY THE MPAA, FOR VIOLENCE AND HORROR.

ARMY OF DARKNESS WAS WATCHED ON MAY 31, 2013.

“Good. Bad. I’m the guy with the gun.” –Ash (Bruce Campbell)

Try and imagine what it would be like if Wes Craven suddenly made a Nightmare on Elm Street movie that put Freddy Krueger in a different persona. I mean a much different persona. For a good handful of movies, he’s a janitor who molests children, dies, and comes back to life to haunt the offspring of those who killed him. And now, all of a sudden, he’s a janitor with a smile that can turn a bad day around. Particularly for those who have seen the movie, it’s pretty difficult to imagine. If you think of such an ineffable change in terms of Sam Raimi’s Evil Dead trilogy, it’s almost impressive how much Army of Darkness changes the structure built in the first two movies. Of course, it’s so disappointing, you can’t afford to be impressed.

Army of Darkness started off on a good note. The cliffhanger ending in Evil Dead II was more than promising. Okay, so Ash (Bruce Campbell), his chainsaw, and his car have all been sucked into a tornado-like force of evil, which lands them in the Medieval Ages. So now the idea is that Ash wants his hands on the ancient Necronomicon (the Book of the Dead) so that he can destroy it and prevent every disaster that happened as a result of that cursed book. It sounds like something that would bring the bizarreness of the entire trilogy over the top and to a satisfying conclusion, but in all actuality, it’s far from that.

army_of_darkness_1

YAAAWWNNN!!!!

Army of Darkness has one moment that evokes its two older brothers. We see a slave thrown into a well of sorts…pause…a geyser of blood. The sort of cheap, dark, death-centric comedy that we’re used to has returned! But note that this scene comes within the first five minutes. The rest is a mess. We have violence, but none of the gratuitous gore that made the first two so much fun. We have camp, too. That would be good, if only this was poking fun at the horror genre. It’s poking fun at basically every “King Arthur” story the way Monty Python did in 1975. The reason it fails is no one from that classic troupe is here to make the poor writing remotely funny.

Watching the Evil Dead trilogy is a bit like watching The Wizard of Oz, backwards. The first and second entry bring us to a place akin to Oz and Munchkinland. There’s a feeling of bizarreness and fear the whole time, but all that is subverted by the welcoming, upbeat, carefree attitude around us. It takes death to heart with gruesome hilarity. Then there’s a twister. Uh-oh. Now we’re back at Auntie Em’s for an hour and a half. As I watched Army of Darkness, I kept hearing Judy Garland sing “Over the Rainbow”. I was yearning for the much-better movie that it deserved to be.

STAY TUNED FOR MY “GANGS OF NEW YORK” REVIEW @ 4:30

Enjoy my review? Please share it using one of the buttons below!

The Next Few Days/Weeks/Months…

Hey all,

This is just an announcement that sometime soon, the pacing of my reviews will slow down.  As in, I may not always have a single post going up each day.  Shocked you are, I know, I know.  It’s mainly because the first part of my summer is busy, and I won’t have as much time to watch movies.  Come mid-July, however, I’ll be watching movies around the clock (I’ll be on bedrest with virtually nothing else to do), so this is nothing permanent.

Peace.

–APKD

Improv is more prominent than you’d think!

Cocktails And Comedy Benefit for the Fit Community

Greetings to all!

I know this defies my posting schedule (the last time I had three posts go up in a single day was last summer, and many of you know it happened EVERY SINGLE DAY).  I just thought you’d be interested to here that some of the greatest lines and most memorable sequences in movie history, weren’t there initially.  They’re a result of method acting, not the screenwriter, and often times, you’d never guess.

I’m not what one would call a “YouTube surfer” (at all!), but somehow, I happened upon a video I couldn’t have done without; it depicted twenty-five of these lines and scenes.

So, if you have six minutes to spare, I encourage you to take a peek at the compilation below.

Two quick notes beforehand:

One, proceed with caution, if you are sensitive to profanity.

Two, I’m not aware if the version I have embedded includes the annotations, but as they are necessary (for once), please click here if there are no annotations.

Post Navigation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 792 other followers

%d bloggers like this: