Test screening review of "The Wolfman" (2010)

Source: Spill.com

While I was waiting in line to see Paranormal Activity last Friday, I was invited to an early screening of a 're-imagining of a classic horror film'. Today, I took my invitation and went across town to get to the early screening. I didn't know what the hell they were going to be showing us. Many were hoping it would be A Nightmare On Elm Street or The Wolfman. I thought that either would be too good to be true. Every seat was filled up in the theater, and I was sitting next to some film critics and some film industry big-shots. After an hour of waiting in my seat, a lady came up in front of the screen and announced that we would be among the first to see The Wolfman. Everyone in the theater cheered loudly, and one guy even stood up and held a fist in the air screaming. I'm sure he made a mess in his pants due to his excitement.

So this is my review of what I was shown. There may be some minor changes done to the film before its theatrical release, but I doubt its anything that would alter my review.

'The Wolfman' Review
The film is a remake of the 1941 horror film of the same name. The central plot follows Lawrence Talbot (Benicio del Toro), a man who re-unites with his father (Anthony Hopkins) after learning his brother has been brutally murdered. Talbot, who has had a distant relationship with his family, decides to stay home in order to discover what happened to his brother. As he gets deeper into his 'investigation', he unravels secrets from his childhood and crosses path with the werewolf, which eventually bites him and makes him a target.

Let me start off with some of the positives of the film. The performances in the movie were absolutely fantastic. Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Hugo Weaving, and Emily Blunt all delivered and really brought their characters to life. It's always good to have great performances in a horror/action film. Everything seems genuine and all of the characters are very engaging. The set pieces and cinematography are all beautifully created. There's a lot of eye candy in this film just as far as the sets are concerned, and I really love the atmosphere this film created. The visuals I saw were pretty cool, although some of them were still in progress. I imagine the visuals will be awesome when the film is released next year. The music is also pretty bad-ass. I rarely comment on the score of a film, but this one really had some great music.

Some other things that impressed me were the action sequences and the 'kills'. The action sequences are pretty exciting and they'll keep you at the edge of your seat. Just when you think it's safe... something crazy happens and mayhem ensues. The 'kills' are also pretty awesome. The werewolf in this film is pretty insane, so expect to see a lot of blood, gore, and human body parts flying around all over the place. The violence, along with the dark atmosphere, really gave a suspenseful experience.

While the film had lots of positive sides to it, it also had its fare share of negative attributes. The one thing that pissed me off the most was the pacing of the film. It starts off slow to introduce the characters and setting, and then all of a sudden it kicks to high gear. After it has some fast scenes (which sometimes feel as if you just skipped ahead and missed something entirely), the film will go back to a slow pacing. What I'm trying to say is that the film's pacing was pretty inconsistent. The pacing stems off and creates other problems, such as poor story elements. I feel as if some of the mysteries in the film were just solved by adding a few lines to the script. The writers probably said amongst themselves:

"So, how does this happen?"
"Umm...I don't know, let's just make him say this or add this sub-plot"

The story even forgets to answer some questions that may have been burning in your mind, and when you leave the theater you wonder why these questions were never answered (you can blame the writing and fast-paced scenes for that). Emily Blunt's character also seemed to be useless, and was just added to give off some romance. Finally, the ending wasn't that great. I wish it gave off more of a conclusion, but the ending just wasn't for me.

Overall, The Wolfman is a fun horror/action film. The acting is great, the sets and visuals are awesome, and the action sequences are pretty bad-ass. There are also some pretty cool kills in this one for all of you blood/gore fans. While the film can be fun, the plot suffers from the film's inconsistent pacing, which eventually leaves some plot holes. Trust me, the trailer makes this flick seem a lot cooler than it actually is. As for my Spill Rating, I'm left in a split decision: If you're really dying to see this film and you're in love with werewolves, horror, gore, and action, then you should see this in a Matinee screening, just don't set your expectations too high! If you saw the trailer, and you were unsure if you wanted to see this in cinemas, I suggest you just give this a Rental.

My Spill Rating: Matinee

ET sneak preview of their first look at Ridley Scott's "Robin Hood" (2010)

I'm excited about this...but there's just something odd about Cate Blanchett dressed up as Maid Marion saying, "welcome to Nottingham, GIRLFRIEND!"

Halloween arrives early: "Paranormal Activity" - REVIEW

Eleven years ago, a little movie with no stars, no budget, and apparently no "scripted moments" called "The Blair Witch Project" made headlines and scared up some serious money at the box-office, terrifying audiences and critics. Sadly, this led to a pathetic sequel, which despite a much bigger budget, tanked. However, it now seems that the "Blair Witch" blend of shaky-cam, low-budget, could-this-be-a-documentary?, style of film making has found a worthy successor in Oren Peli's low budget fright-fest about a young couple who might be haunted by a demonic spirit of sorts.
And when I say low budget, I'm not exaggerating. Costing only $11,000 and shot over only seven days, and utilizing minimal but effective how-did-they-do-that? special effects, it's certainly an impressive example of what can be achieved with such a minuscule budget. But special effects aren't the only impressive thing about this eerier little movie. Instead of devolving into a non-stop scream-fest, the film, written by Peli, actually gives its leads time to talk as they go back-and-forth on what's going on. On the one hand, there's Katie (Katie Featherston, who looks like a cross between Jenna Fischer and Amy Adams), who thinks that the strange events around their house have to do with a "presence" from her childhood, and on the other hand there's Micah (Micah Sloat), who for much of the film throws out sarcastic commentary, giving the film some levity, and providing balance in the "supernatural vs. rationality" conflict that arises.
So what makes "Paranormal Activity" so effective aside from its bare-bones, no-budget style? For starters, Peli takes his time before getting to the scares; maybe a little too much time, but time none the less. And even when the spooky things start happening, there's a sense of gradual build-up. Initial spooks are more weird than frightening, so when the time comes for Peli to pull out the big moments, they usually work, even if there are times when the shock-factor stems more from thinking "how did they pull that effect off?". Performance-wise the film is actually quite solid, with Featherston and Sloat projecting a very real, zero-glamor appeal that adds to the overall effect (made particularly impressive by the fact that there were no re-shoots).
If I had to make a recommendation about "Paranormal Activity", I'd say that you should see it in a theater, and at a night-time showing (I went at 11pm and had a blast), and hopefully a sizeable crowd will be there. Even though there are bound to be a few obnoxious jerks who won't shut up AT ALL, there's something riveting about feeling the tension and jolts that "Paranormal Activity" is able to generate. You'll also want to make sure to go with at least one other person (especially if you go at night), because this is one fright-fest that you won't want to see by yourself, or else you'll face a long, unsettling walk back to your car. To quote one review of the film from the San Francisco Chronicle, "a few people in the audience were laughing during the first half of the film. No one was laughing during the long walk out of the theater."

Grade: B-

High-quality trailer for "Toy Story 3"

Pixar:Animation::Jesus:Christians

Character posters for "The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus" (click picture for larger view)

Lars von Trier gives hints about his next pyschological torture device...

Source: Slashfilm.com

Lars Von Trier has been doing press over the past week for the US release of Antichrist. (Remotely, as he doesn’t fly, and has never been to the States.) But it wasn’t until today that he revealed the name and nature of his next project. Planet Melancholia is said to be a ‘psychological disaster film’, which he will write and direct. Hm. Psychological disaster? Sounds like Antichrist, no? But this one has a sci-fi bent, and a couple other interesting things about it.

There’s the possibility that the film is actually just called Melancholia, which is how Variety is currently listing it. The trade says the title is illustrated in their press release by ‘an enourmous planet…that looms threateningly close to Earth.” THR says that Von Trier is “moving into Roland Emmerich territory” with Planet Melancholia, but also calls Antichrist an “art house mash up of the slasher horror genre,” so I’m not sure I trust the Emmerich description.

More intriguing is the note from producer Peter Aalbaek Jensen, who said the film will shoot next summer in Germany and Sweden, and feature “a mix of spectacular, cinematic imagery with Dogme-style handheld camerawork.” Jensen also said the film, which has reportedly come together very quickly, would be “romantic, in a Lord Byron sort of way.” The sci-fi intimations are slight, so I’m curious to hear more about that angle, if indeed it is significant. Jensen says the film does not involve an alien invasion, so there’s that. Wonder if this one will get a video game, too?

Unfortunately, we don’t know any more than this. We might get a few more details as the director does more Antichrist promotion, but I expect we’ll have to wait a few more months for anything significant.

As for Lars Von Trier, there was only one comment: “No more happy endings!” Be afraid

"A Serious Man" - REVIEW

"I didn't do anything" is a phrase often said by Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg) in the Coen brothers' latest cinematic oddity "A Serious Man", and for the most part, the statement is accurate. Opening with a quote from Rashi (paraphrase: receive what life gives you with simplicity) and a rewind back to what I'd assume are Gopnik's ancestors, the clash between belief in spirits and curses, and belief in the purely rational is established, and it will continue into the film's present-day (1967). Larry, as so many other reviews have said before, functions more or less as a Job figure: a man whose life just gets worse and worse even though Larry never really did anything wrong, and through it all, though he questions God's hand, he never doubts God's existence, even as things start to pile up. Like many Coen films, this one centers on characters (or in this case, a character) who is inherently good, but whose life falls apart due to a combination of fate and his/her own less-than-great choices.
However, in Larry Gopnik the Coens seem to have created their most innocent suffering protagonist yet. When Larry says he didn't do anything, it's pretty much true. He's been faithful to his wife, who now wants a special religious divorce so she can marry a neighbor with whom she's developed a connection, and manages to uphold his academic integrity when one of his students tries to bribe him for a better grade, among other incidents. There's also his squabbling kids, one of whom is stealing money to buy pot all while zoning out in Hebrew school to the songs of Jefferson Airplane. There's also the matter of two new neighbors: a family of rednecks who may or may not be anti-Semetic, and a very attractive single woman who likes to sunbathe nude. So what does Larry do in the face of all of these mounting problems? He decides to visit three very different rabbis, hopefuy that one of the men will give him the answer he so desperately needs.
I've actually just given you the entire plot of "A Serious Man", but surprisingly, this isn't a spoiler. Why? Because the joy here is in the way Joel and Ethan Coen, by now masters of this sort of film, beautifully craft this near-constant downward spiral that is certainly dark, but also filled with surprisingly hilarity that won't elicit laughs from Jews alone. The way in which the Coens gradually, almost imperceptibly, turn up the tension and intensity beautifully shows their command of the craft of filmmaking, particularly in the humor. Whereas the Coens' 2008 offering, the star-studded "Burn After Reading", was a well-made film that suffered from forced, inorganic attempts of humor, "A Serious Man", much like "The Big Lebowski" or more closely, "Fargo", finds its humor in organic, real ways, never trying too hard to turn some odd idiosyncrasy into a joke. The dialogue that hits home isn't forced or constructed for the sole purpose of being "catchy" or "easily quotable", but instead is natural, making the funniest moments come with a delightful amount of surprise. And, much like "Lebowski" or "Fargo", the storytelling gradually becomes more compelling, while somehow maintaining an outward appearance of being totally relaxed. The early portions particularly may seem to be too relaxed, but they are in fact all part of the superb build-up that the Coens accomplish.
The Coens have a long history of getting good work from their casts, and "A Serious Man" is no exception here by any means. Stuhlbarg makes Larry a character with whom we can feel as he suffers, even though some of his troubles are meant to be taken as bleakly funny. As for the supporting cast, no one has a stand-out supporting role. However, the supporting ensemble as a collective is incredible, particularly Richard Kind as Larry's brother Arthur, and Fred Melamed as Sy Ableman, the man Larry's wife is leaving him for. It's movies like this that make me wish there was an Oscar for Best Ensemble Cast, because while the supporting roles taken individually may be too small to garner any deserved attention, as a collective they pack a wallop.
Artistically and technically the film is superb. Though slow and not entirely clear during its opening scenes, the Coens, once again working under the fake persona of Roderick Jaynes, edit this story to near-perfection. They're aided by long-time cinematographer Roger Deakins (why does this man not have an Oscar yet?), who frames and lights the shots with subtle richness, and nails a handful of scenes when characters are high on pot. And though his music is rarely heard, long-time collaborator Carter Burwell (also, why does this man not have an Oscar?) provides the occasional smattering of low-key, effective music.
I've saved one last piece of the story for the end, and it happens to be, well, the end. The Coens practically made headlines with their abrupt, mystifying ending to "No Country for Old Men", and "A Serious Man" ends in a similarly mystifying way. And while, unlike "No Country", I still have yet to begin to decipher the full meaning of the ending, it does function as a strange, full-circle point in the Coens' careers. Roger Ebert said in his review (again, I'm only paraphrasing here), "it is often said that parables contain clues to their full meaning in their final lines," and "A Serious Man" seems to be no exception. The ending, both confusing and heart-stopping, is a testament to the Coens' strange talents as filmmakers. I may never fully grasp what the ending to "A Serious Man" means, but in a sense it doesn't matter. The mystery almost makes it all better, in what may be the most mature (behind "No Country") film of the Coens' careers, and a more than worthy successor to their crowning achievement from two years ago. Serious and seriously funny, "A Serious Man" will certainly be as divisive as previous Coen brothers films, but for those who can open themselves to their odd little way of making movies, it's also seriously good filmmaking.

Grade: B+/A-