Change Your Image
obscuringrichie
Reviews
Paul Williams: Still Alive (2011)
Stephen Kessler Still Alive?
This film is not a traditional biopic, but rather the director's recounting of the role Paul Williams has played throughout his life. How he remembers him from his youth, and how he figures into his current life. There are touches of Paul's early career and life, but the primary focus is on the friendship which grew between him and the director throughout the years of filming.
Stephen Kessler, a once hopeful, now floundering director, had been a fan of Williams' work growing up, but lost track of him somewhere around the early 80's. Much to his surprise, he found out that the entertainer was not dead, as he had long assumed, and was still making public appearances. He then went on a journey to discover where Paul had disappeared to for all those absent years.
The only flaw with this idea is that, for many of us, Paul never disappeared. Sure, his presence wasn't as strongly felt as it may have been a few decades ago, but even with his struggles with drug and alcohol abuse (now clean for 20 years), Paul was still making music and appearing in several films and TV shows. While I realize that Paul may have been flying under the radar for many, he was far from underground.
Kessler ignores these recent efforts, leaving blank Paul's creative history between 1980 and the late 2000s when he started filming this documentary. When asked during a Q&A following a screening of this film if he was still writing music, Paul lovingly jokes that he is and he thinks Kessler would have been happier to have found him living a trailer and eating out of trashcans, as it would have been better for his movie.
This film is not really one about Paul Williams, per se, it seems more about Kessler's search to find out something about his past, about his own slipping into obscurity, and the ways in which filming Paul transforms from an idea, to a crutch, to a renewed hope in his own career...and a friendship between the two.
While I feel like some discredit was done to Paul by lacking to mention the full spectrum of his work, I am glad to have a film that can renew interest in him and his many talents. The film is fully entertaining and Williams is delightful, albeit not quite the focus that the title might lead one to believe.
And Soon the Darkness (1970)
High on tension, low on logic
And Soon the Darkness turns on a now common premise. Two young girls go out on back roads to seek the real France, only to find true danger on an isolated landscape.
The film is somewhat unique in its ability to capture terror in broad daylight in a not wholly vacant surrounding. The two girls seemingly have nothing to worry about as they bike along the open roads to their next destination. The set up, though somewhat overdone in present day (and therefore mildly less powerful then it would have been in its time), creates a fairly solid foundation for a truly suspenseful ride. However, once one of the girls goes missing, the realism of the story gets thrown to the wind and some of its primary fear elements turn to frustrations hurled at the television set.
While the acting is generally good, there are moments when it seems that Jane (Pamela Franklin) has completely forgotten that her friend has gone missing in the same area where another girl had been murdered not so long ago...that she is in a different country where she doesn't speak the language or know anyone...that the one man she had been confiding in now appears to be a killer. Not only that, but Jane is a reflection of an earlier model of horror victim. On the cusp of "girl power" films, Jane's only defense for the majority of the picture is to run and hide. Most notably, when Jane is in the house where Paul is breaking in, she doesn't search for a weapon. She knows where he is coming in. She has the advantage, but instead she runs on. It's an image that is somewhat hard to accept when seeing it for the first time in modern day.
The true faults of the film, though, are in the actions of Paul (Sandor Eles) which never go explained. Why is her always hiding? Why does he constantly leave Jane in the dark? While I'm a fan of filling in the blanks with films, this one seems more like lackluster writing efforts than intentional mystery. For one thing, Paul must be the worst detective of all time. He destroys evidence that may have aided in bringing a killer to justice. He withholds information that could have protected Jane. He is terrible at searching trailers...how many hiding places could there really be (come on, you checked there in the last one). He doesn't see a pair of white panties on a dark ground during the day, but thinks to check under cars for missing bicycles...
I find it very hard to find a film scary when the characters seems so utterly incompetent. The film does a good job of building suspense, but then you start to really not care if anyone makes it out alive. There are many others that do the same job while creating logical plot leaps, character development, and fulfilling endings. This film is not the full package.
Methodic (2007)
mmmm...Moronic
I thought I should edit my initial review because, while I had and now continue to firmly believe that this film's score is being bumped up by people associated with the cast and crew, I didn't think it was fair to rate it without finishing the film. And now I know, instead of just suspecting, that this film stays just as awful as it starts. As I am forced to leave at least 1 star I will now dedicate this star to the actor playing the police chief, as he was the only one that didn't seem to be headed for a career in porn.
Why is this film so terrible, well, beyond the aforementioned acting torture (worst of all was the lesbian I would say), this film is unoriginal. It starts off less as an homage to Halloween and more like a rip off. From there it spirals into Fallen, along with ripping off ideas from the Exorcist. Now I know I've seen that exact scene with the fake seizure before, but I can't place which film it was.
Now I've read the other reviews. So before anyone gets all huffy, I realize that the director was planning on a Halloween remake, although I doubt the timing with Rob Zombie is the only reason he wasn't able to do it. I can't imagine any film student choosing to do a remake of one of the most well respected horror films as their first feature ... especially knowing that they only have the budget for a 10 day shoot.
To me the film reeked of laziness, both in idea and execution. The lighting was awful. The sound was awful. The dialogue was bland and often poorly delivered. Even in the first half hour it seemed as though there were about 10 minutes that should have been trimmed in editing to help with pacing and also because they didn't do anything for the story. And it didn't seem like the director strayed far from the campus with extras and small parts... a mental hospital that is only for the 20 something set?
This film is just sloppy and not really original.
I've seen films in the 48 hour film festival that seemed to have more thought and care put into them than this. Maybe it could have made it as a short, but it doesn't have enough meat for a feature.
Black Christmas (1974)
Black Gold
For the month of October I make it my goal to feast on a filmic diet of strictly horror. This year was my second year in what I hope will be a continual tradition. Being as it was only the second year, I also did my best to only watch film that were new to me so that I could get the fullest effect.
I love the feeling of being scared by a film, but as I've immersed myself further into movies I find it very hard to be frightened anymore. I keep looking to find a film that can fill me with that same uneasiness and terror that films like Psycho did when I was younger. I am often disappointed. There are many good horror films that I can appreciate on an artistic level, but which don't reach me on a visceral one, and oh so many more that can't overcome the obstacles of time and hype.
I had never heard of Black Christmas until this year. I had wandered on to IMDb disappointed yet again with a film that vowed to pack a punch, when out of the wilderness someone pointed to this film as one that had made their skin crawl. Being as I had been disappointed so many times before with similar claims, I tacked Black Christmas onto the Netflix list as a late night gory romp. I can't recall the last time I have been so pleasantly surprised.
Black Christmas may seem like an old story at this point in time... murderous serial killer is making calls from inside the house...gasp...but even under the modern microscope I have to applaud the film. Never once do I feel like the director is talking down to me. The audience knows what's going on from the start. The story isn't meant to be a twist, but rather it wraps us up in this fear of knowing what is going on and being able to do nothing to stop it.
The writing is wonderful, fresh and well acted with a good balance of humor that doesn't feel like it's trying too hard. What's even more wonderful though is what isn't said and what isn't seen. There is a mastery to this film in how much it lets the audience imagine, the what ifs and the images that it plants in your head without showing you anything.
To me the film is a perfect blend of mental and emotional stimulation. And even after countless remakes and copycats, there were still elements of this film that were new to me. It felt like a blend of all of my favorite horror films without ever losing its own originality and entity.
It'll be a long time before I can find another one as good as this.
Suspiria (1977)
Beautiful Film, Bad Movie
Okay. I watched this movie hoping to get scared. I wanted to find a film that really creeped me out. I knew that this was a famous and well respected horror film so I thought I'd give it a chance even though the other Argento film that I had seen had left me cold. I love films that do a steady buildup of suspense, but this one just didn't cut it. Yes, visually there was something completely haunting, and yes, the score was kind of creepy, but I thought it did a terrible job of building tension.
Some of the acting was awful, the friend of the main girl in particular. It's hard for me to feel scared for someone when my brain is screaming "oh somebody kill her already!" She kept flipping out about all these little things. I got that she was scared, but I didn't have any idea what was so menacing about the situations that she kept flying of the handle about. So the teachers aren't going home, OK, why is that really a big deal. There was just this leap into fear that made her emotions seem irrational, and therefore, didn't make me feel frightened.
My other issue with the characters is that they didn't seem too bright. To me it seemed obvious that the girl was yelling to someone inside the school. Why would anyone mumble that loud into an open door? All of their "ah ha!" moments seemed more like "yeah, so?s" And who in their right mind would stack boxes like that?! The final nail on the spine tingle coffin was the music. At first the song was so eerie that I really enjoyed it, but later it just seemed so loud. I couldn't make out footsteps. I couldn't make out breathing. There were times when I felt like they heard someone talking only to realize it was part of the song. Other times I didn't know if they were purposefully blocking out dialogue to add to the mystery or if there was actually just silence (pool scene if you were wondering). Ultimately it became a big distraction from the buildup, covering up the subtle terror of the quiet. The girls are creeping around and scared, but I can't even tell if they're in danger because I can't hear anyone coming... which made it so hard to put myself in their shoes.
Suspiria is in many ways a beautiful film, but to me, a flop as a movie.
Audrey Rose (1977)
Don't be fooled, this isn't a horror movie
Maybe I'm biased. When I was looking for something to spice up the Halloween mood Netflix recommended this movie to me. I enjoy paranormal horror films and was looking for the moody, psychological thrill that the 70's horror films seemed to have in spades. That was not delivered to me with this film.
On it's own, Audrey Rose isn't a bad movie. Not great, but not bad. I don't know how I feel about Marsha Mason on a whole. I don't think she added the dramatic oomph that I was hoping for from her character, but she wasn't bad or a distraction, which is more than I can say for the little girl. I thought that the actress playing Ivy was awful the majority of the time, non-sympathetic and obnoxiously pouty.
But the real issue with the film is that I felt cheated. I was promised a horror story and instead I got one of reincarnation. This film is really more of a courtroom drama if anything. Aside from my issue with how the film is presented, I also found myself annoyed that the filmed seemed to allude that those who believe in reincarnation are the only ones that believe in life after death and can therefore be comforted instead of bereft.
All in all, this film served as an OK drama about the benefits of Hinduism. If you walk into it knowing that maybe you can get more out of it than I did.
Lo (2009)
Never gets out of the box
I'll admit that toward the end of the film, something about Lo warmed to me. The costume was impressive for the obviously low budget and some of the dialogue was fairly funny. I even enjoyed the ending, which is probably what got this film from the grueling 2 it had in my mind for the first half.
There are a lot of difficulties in making low budget films look good. The main issue is having a good story. This one wasn't bad, but from there on it misses the mark on so many fundamentals.
1) Cast - The actor playing Justin was horrible. His hammy and frantic facial expressions made it hard to take him seriously and even harder to care about him. The actress playing April, though invading less screen time, had an equal difficulty finding realism in her character.
2) Script - Some of the script was funny, most of the script was forced. The jokes felt like they too crafted and unnatural, and the occasional bit of laugh-track didn't help. But worst of all...
3) Staging - Or rather, stagey. This film has play written all over it, which I am certain is how it originated. The problem being that it never took advantage of its new medium. The set never moves (which makes sense in the last scene when you at last see daylight and realize what cheap filming equipment they must have been working with). Not only does the film stay stationary like a play it also leaks into the aforementioned problem areas.
The acting is over done because it is performed for someone in the back row, not up front and personal. The script suffers from unnatural pauses and deliveries for that reason too. I think that this "film" could someday be remade quite well, but as it is it just holds the audience at too much of a distance instead of drawing them in.
Vampire's Kiss (1988)
Just Try to Stick With It
Okay, I'll admit that when I first started watching this film I was almost ashamed to have it on. I was distracted by the bizarre accent and what seemed like another over-the-top for the sake of ... well nothing... acting from Cage, but I implore anyone who sits down with this film to see it through to the end.
First off, I take offense to other reviewers saying that any experienced film goer would dislike this film. Trust me, I've seen more than my share of films and this one was unique to me, even thought provoking. It was yes funny and sad, sometimes at the same time the closer you get to the end. I think that had Cage not gone so over-the-top that the film would have been far too heavy,typical, and one-sided. Truly he does offensive things, but in his mind they aren't, and right or wrong I think it was a refreshing perspective.
Secondly, I am not a Nick Cage fan. I don't think that you have to be one to enjoy this movie. I think that he works for this part, and it doesn't have as much to do with talent as it does with fit. He was good for this role.
I like that the true plot isn't revealed right away. I think it would take away from the film to have everything handed to you. The truth is, the character doesn't understand what's happening to him, why should we right away. And as for the accent, yes, it will drive you crazy at first, but when you think of his switching persona toward the end when he's "talking to his therapist." I think that it all makes sense, he's acting the way he's thinks a person should act. Even the hammy gestures during his transformation then make sense. He's acting how he thinks a vampire should act, the way he's seen it in the movies.
I truly enjoyed this film and find myself enjoying even more in retrospect. I don't recommend it for everyone, but I fully support it and believe that it has merit as a film.