Cold Creek Manor is a tense, character-driven thriller directed by Mike Figgis, the mastermind behind 1995's Leaving Las Vegas. The story's protagonist is Cooper Tilsman (Quaid), who decides to move to the country after a near-death accident involving his son. They leave everything behind in the city and move into the unknown. Stigmatized as intruders, city slickers, they have a rough time settling in to their new home. Things become even more tense as the previous home owner, Dale Massey (Dorff) shows up unexpectantly, and terrifying events start to occur.
Dennis Quaid plays the stern, overprotective family man, a character he is quite familiar with. But there's a reason why he's typecast in that role - he plays it perfectly. As soon as Dale Massey slithers his way into their lives, Quaid's Cooper Tilsman is wary of him. He never takes his eyes off the shady man, while remaining polite and cordial to keep his family calm and at ease. Sharon Stone is comfortable as the strong, business woman turned homebody. Kristen Bell - can't act now, and couldn't act back then. Juliette Lewis is at home as the female sidekick to a crazed lunatic - she did it well in Natural Born Killers and Kalifornia, so I guess it makes sense to play the same character she did ten years ago.
Finally, there's Stephen Dorff. This man gets a pretty bad rap, and honestly, I don't know why. While he often plays the part of the good guy, the producers knew what they were doing when they cast him the role of Dave Massey, the local maniac haunted by his past. Like he did in Blade, Dorff hits the nail on the head. His acting is very subtle in the beginning - the intensity in his eyes tells you he's been places, places you don't want to ever know. He carries this intensity throughout the film, and he slowly starts to descend into madness as things unravel, no longer becoming the creepy local but the angry, bitter man who is determined to make life horrible for the people inhabiting his former home. He provides the film its strong, emotional element, such as the scene where he confronts his abusive, browbeating father. It's a shame Stephen Dorff doesn't get as much work as he deserves.
The film's pacing was handled to near perfection. It starts off slow, with the father's suspicions toward Dave Massey, and of course he is on his own, as no one believes the things that Cooper accuses Massey of. The suspicions turn into reality as Massey openly confronts Cooper, showing his true, vindictive side. The only problem I had was when the children's horse was found dead in the pool, they accused Cooper of hitting it with his car; if he hit it with his car, the wound would not have been on the horse's head. And how would the horse get in the pool? The fact that the sheriff doesn't pry into the matter a little more shows how ignorant the town is of Massey's psychotic nature. Personally, I think this scene could've been left out.
Overall, I give it a 7/10. Fine acting mixed with well-paced suspense makes this a compelling psychological thriller. The film is driven mostly by characters and how they develop and react to the strange events that occur, as well as the mystery that surrounds Cold Creek Manor. We are constantly guessing what happened at that house, and right when we think we know what exactly it was, we are thrown in another direction.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Monday, January 3, 2011
An Education
Seeing as it was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture last year, I figured "An Education" would be a worthwhile film to watch. I was right. With a small cast of talented individuals, the film never loses steam. Carey Mulligan plays Jenny, the young, innocent girl who is bored with her routine life. She earns her Oscar nod, capable of expressing any type of emotion, be it teen angst, sadness, or wide-eyed optimism. Peter Sarsgaard delivers a spot-on performance as the older, refined man who takes Jenny away and shows her a new and exciting world. He makes it so we know he is up to no good, but sincere to some small degree. Danny, David's friend, is played by Dominic Cooper, a sort of young Michael Shannon. He plays the part well - a man who seems to have an avid interest in the arts, yet there is something very shady about the way he carries himself. Alfred Molina plays Jenny's strict yet gullible father, who doesn't seem to care that his young daughter has taking up with a man almost his own age.
When Jenny meets David, they strike up a relationship rather quickly. He takes her to fancy musical concerts and expensive restaurants and introduces her to his friends, who don't even seem bothered by the fact that she is sixteen. This, to me, sets off an alarm in my head and brings certain questions to mind. Has he done this before? Are there others?
Despite these questions, we watch them get close to one another and form a bond. This is where I find a problem with the film. It's the question of whether or not it tries to portray Jenny and David's relationship as romantic or honest. At the start of the film, we immediately know that what David is doing is wrong. He is a man of his late 30s creeping on a sixteen year old. One could argue that he is honest in his ways, that he just enjoys her company and wants to introduce her to all the beautiful things of the world - but come on. He could've given her a ride home and left it at that. And the next day he sends her flowers! I tried hard to see the good and purity in their relationship, but can't help get over the fact that he's more than twice her age. Are we supposed to overlook this discrepancy (as well as the fact that he's a liar, a thief, and experienced con artist) and see their little fling as a fleeting moment in Jenny's life, a time she'll look back upon and smile?
And how did those parents let David get away with this? Even if they thought he would be able to provide for her and take care of her - he took her to Paris. They had to have known what was going on. That they would let her lose a great education in order for a man to take care of her is very Anti-feminist. The father does, eventually, confess that what he did was wrong.
The film was a nice piece of reality - a sincere coming-of-age story about a teenage girl who has not quite figured out how the world works. People aren't who they say they are, but when this is discovered, everyone carries on with the rest of their lives as if nothing has happened. The film shows how we all take missteps in life, and while the memory of what happened is always at the back of our minds, we must learn to forget them and move on. The film is similar in this sense to another Oscar-nominated film, Up in the Air. I recommend both films, for their superb acting and honest, true story.
When Jenny meets David, they strike up a relationship rather quickly. He takes her to fancy musical concerts and expensive restaurants and introduces her to his friends, who don't even seem bothered by the fact that she is sixteen. This, to me, sets off an alarm in my head and brings certain questions to mind. Has he done this before? Are there others?
Despite these questions, we watch them get close to one another and form a bond. This is where I find a problem with the film. It's the question of whether or not it tries to portray Jenny and David's relationship as romantic or honest. At the start of the film, we immediately know that what David is doing is wrong. He is a man of his late 30s creeping on a sixteen year old. One could argue that he is honest in his ways, that he just enjoys her company and wants to introduce her to all the beautiful things of the world - but come on. He could've given her a ride home and left it at that. And the next day he sends her flowers! I tried hard to see the good and purity in their relationship, but can't help get over the fact that he's more than twice her age. Are we supposed to overlook this discrepancy (as well as the fact that he's a liar, a thief, and experienced con artist) and see their little fling as a fleeting moment in Jenny's life, a time she'll look back upon and smile?
And how did those parents let David get away with this? Even if they thought he would be able to provide for her and take care of her - he took her to Paris. They had to have known what was going on. That they would let her lose a great education in order for a man to take care of her is very Anti-feminist. The father does, eventually, confess that what he did was wrong.
The film was a nice piece of reality - a sincere coming-of-age story about a teenage girl who has not quite figured out how the world works. People aren't who they say they are, but when this is discovered, everyone carries on with the rest of their lives as if nothing has happened. The film shows how we all take missteps in life, and while the memory of what happened is always at the back of our minds, we must learn to forget them and move on. The film is similar in this sense to another Oscar-nominated film, Up in the Air. I recommend both films, for their superb acting and honest, true story.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Daybreakers Review
Going into this film, I didn’t know what to expect. From the trailer, it seemed like it had an interesting storyline and a talented cast. But with all the craze about vampires as of late, I wasn’t sure if this was just another attempt by money-hungry producers to cash in on the latest trend. Fortunately, I found this to be untrue.
The plot to Daybreakers is simple enough: vampires are the majority of the population, and because of this, their human blood supply is running out. Thus, they must find a blood substitute. On the other side of the spectrum, the last remaining humans must join together to find a way to save mankind.
While Daybreakers has a basic plotline, it is unique in one aspect; unlike other films of this genre, it does not simply pit vampires against humans. While both races fight for survival, some vampires work with the humans to find a cure, treating vampirism not as an advantage but as a disease. That is where the film differs as well. Most films either portray vampires as cursed creatures whom we should feel sorry for, or powerful Gods who treat humans like cattle. Daybreakers has both vampires that embrace their superhuman powers and vampires that despise what they are.
The story centers on Edward Dalton, a vampire who believes he is cursed. Ironically, he is a scientist in charge of finding a blood substitute so the vampire race can live on. The sympathetic vampire who cares more for humans than his own kind is played by Ethan Hawke…big surprise there. Not that he’s bad, but it’d be nice to see Hawke play the bad guy every now and then.
While Edward Dalton is an interesting character, it is his brother Frankie Dalton (Michael Dorman) that steals the show. Frankie is a vampire soldier who is a little more than gun-ho about hunting down humans. And, unlike Edward, he is a three-dimensional character that changes throughout the course of the film. Edward sees in black and white: vampire bad, human good. Frankie is put into difficult situations and his conscious suffers from the decisions he makes. Michael Dorman plays the character to perfection, capturing the energy and charisma of Frankie at the start of things, and then showing the matured, experienced man he becomes.
Sam Neill is perfectly creepy as Charles Bromley, the villain in charge of the largest blood supply corporation. Willem Dafoe plays Lionel ‘Elvis’ Cormac, a vampire-turned-human. Dafoe is his usual self, delivering the best one-liners and providing humor whenever it is needed. The only character I had a problem with was Audrey Bennett (Claudia Karvan). It is obvious that her character was created to be the token love interest for Edward Dalton, but she fails miserably. Their relationship is never fully realized, and Karvan doesn’t quite have the beauty and flair to make it as the lead female.
The Sperig Brothers capture the perfect atmosphere for a vampire film, and remind us that vampires only come out at night (recent films would have you believe otherwise). But, if they do come out during the day, they need to tint their car windows. Daybreakers is a run-of-the-mill action-thriller that has poignant moments every now and then. The film makes you care about the characters (or at least some), but it also delivers the blood and violence that you came to see. I recommend it for anyone who is a fan of the vampire genre, and for those who want to stand off boredom for ninety minutes.
The plot to Daybreakers is simple enough: vampires are the majority of the population, and because of this, their human blood supply is running out. Thus, they must find a blood substitute. On the other side of the spectrum, the last remaining humans must join together to find a way to save mankind.
While Daybreakers has a basic plotline, it is unique in one aspect; unlike other films of this genre, it does not simply pit vampires against humans. While both races fight for survival, some vampires work with the humans to find a cure, treating vampirism not as an advantage but as a disease. That is where the film differs as well. Most films either portray vampires as cursed creatures whom we should feel sorry for, or powerful Gods who treat humans like cattle. Daybreakers has both vampires that embrace their superhuman powers and vampires that despise what they are.
The story centers on Edward Dalton, a vampire who believes he is cursed. Ironically, he is a scientist in charge of finding a blood substitute so the vampire race can live on. The sympathetic vampire who cares more for humans than his own kind is played by Ethan Hawke…big surprise there. Not that he’s bad, but it’d be nice to see Hawke play the bad guy every now and then.
While Edward Dalton is an interesting character, it is his brother Frankie Dalton (Michael Dorman) that steals the show. Frankie is a vampire soldier who is a little more than gun-ho about hunting down humans. And, unlike Edward, he is a three-dimensional character that changes throughout the course of the film. Edward sees in black and white: vampire bad, human good. Frankie is put into difficult situations and his conscious suffers from the decisions he makes. Michael Dorman plays the character to perfection, capturing the energy and charisma of Frankie at the start of things, and then showing the matured, experienced man he becomes.
Sam Neill is perfectly creepy as Charles Bromley, the villain in charge of the largest blood supply corporation. Willem Dafoe plays Lionel ‘Elvis’ Cormac, a vampire-turned-human. Dafoe is his usual self, delivering the best one-liners and providing humor whenever it is needed. The only character I had a problem with was Audrey Bennett (Claudia Karvan). It is obvious that her character was created to be the token love interest for Edward Dalton, but she fails miserably. Their relationship is never fully realized, and Karvan doesn’t quite have the beauty and flair to make it as the lead female.
The Sperig Brothers capture the perfect atmosphere for a vampire film, and remind us that vampires only come out at night (recent films would have you believe otherwise). But, if they do come out during the day, they need to tint their car windows. Daybreakers is a run-of-the-mill action-thriller that has poignant moments every now and then. The film makes you care about the characters (or at least some), but it also delivers the blood and violence that you came to see. I recommend it for anyone who is a fan of the vampire genre, and for those who want to stand off boredom for ninety minutes.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
The Rules of Attraction
Based on Bret Easton Ellis’ novel of the same title, The Rules of Attraction is a typical film about college students who fall in love with the wrong people. Paul (Ian Somerhalder) is in love with Sean (James Van Der Beek), but Sean is infatuated with Lauren (Shannyn Sossamon), but Lauren just wants Victor (Kip Pardue), who is in Europe having sex with a different girl every night. So, Lauren settles for Sean, Sean sleeps with her roommate, Lara (Jessica Biel), who will sleep with anyone, and Paul fantasizes about sleeping with Sean while trying to sleep with straight men. No one ever gets what they want, but that is okay with the viewers, because the characters are so shallow and self-involved that for them to find happiness would be a slap in the face to anything decent.
In this sense, the film doesn’t stray too far from the novel, but there are some changes, or rather, ambiguities, that are cleared up in the film. Director Roger Avary utilizes the split screen technique, not just for recreational purposes, but to expose some truths that were not readily made in the novel. He uses artistic integrity to show that things aren’t quite what they seem, and that most of the characters are living in fantasy, refusing to accept the rejection and reality of their lives.
The acting is sub par, but what does one expect from a film about college kids. James Van Der Beek tries to break away from his good boy image by acting like he’s a hard-ass, pissed off all the time, but to me it just looks like he’s trying too hard. He’s incapable of acting with any subtlety; when he’s mad, his eyes go wide like a psycho, and when he’s…oh wait, madness is his only emotion. And when Sean’s with Lauren, when he’s happy, he still looks discontent. But that speaks more for the character than the actor, considering one of the themes is that no one is ever truly happy with their life. Shannyn Sossamon shows a lot more emotion than her character in the novel, but only when she pines for Victor, or when she catches Sean cheating on her with her roommate. Either way, while she doesn’t bring anything new to the role, she’s more tolerable than her co-star. Jessica Biel is underutilized, though it is not much of a loss. Cliff Collins Jr. plays a good paranoid, spastic drug dealer, but, like Van Der Beek, he overdoes it at times.
It’s hard to identify or empathize with any of the other characters, seeing as they’re spoiled, over privileged, and have little respect for themselves whatsoever. Lauren seems like a nice enough girl, but her naivety and lack of self-respect for her body makes it hard to really care about her. Sean Bateman is a lunatic. Paul Denton appears to be nothing but a pretty boy who wants to convert straight males into homosexuals. In Ellis’ novel, Paul Denton was a somewhat affable character, the guy one could root for, but here it seems as though the director didn’t have enough time to tell his story, so he just threw in whatever scenes were needed to make the main storyline flow easily. Ian Somerhalder does his best to keep his character alive, but ultimately it becomes Sean’s story, or rather, the story of a bunch of shallow college students who no one cares about. They do not even care for themselves. There’s nothing new under the sun, some say, and likewise, there’s nothing new in this film.
In this sense, the film doesn’t stray too far from the novel, but there are some changes, or rather, ambiguities, that are cleared up in the film. Director Roger Avary utilizes the split screen technique, not just for recreational purposes, but to expose some truths that were not readily made in the novel. He uses artistic integrity to show that things aren’t quite what they seem, and that most of the characters are living in fantasy, refusing to accept the rejection and reality of their lives.
The acting is sub par, but what does one expect from a film about college kids. James Van Der Beek tries to break away from his good boy image by acting like he’s a hard-ass, pissed off all the time, but to me it just looks like he’s trying too hard. He’s incapable of acting with any subtlety; when he’s mad, his eyes go wide like a psycho, and when he’s…oh wait, madness is his only emotion. And when Sean’s with Lauren, when he’s happy, he still looks discontent. But that speaks more for the character than the actor, considering one of the themes is that no one is ever truly happy with their life. Shannyn Sossamon shows a lot more emotion than her character in the novel, but only when she pines for Victor, or when she catches Sean cheating on her with her roommate. Either way, while she doesn’t bring anything new to the role, she’s more tolerable than her co-star. Jessica Biel is underutilized, though it is not much of a loss. Cliff Collins Jr. plays a good paranoid, spastic drug dealer, but, like Van Der Beek, he overdoes it at times.
It’s hard to identify or empathize with any of the other characters, seeing as they’re spoiled, over privileged, and have little respect for themselves whatsoever. Lauren seems like a nice enough girl, but her naivety and lack of self-respect for her body makes it hard to really care about her. Sean Bateman is a lunatic. Paul Denton appears to be nothing but a pretty boy who wants to convert straight males into homosexuals. In Ellis’ novel, Paul Denton was a somewhat affable character, the guy one could root for, but here it seems as though the director didn’t have enough time to tell his story, so he just threw in whatever scenes were needed to make the main storyline flow easily. Ian Somerhalder does his best to keep his character alive, but ultimately it becomes Sean’s story, or rather, the story of a bunch of shallow college students who no one cares about. They do not even care for themselves. There’s nothing new under the sun, some say, and likewise, there’s nothing new in this film.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Mr. Brooks
Now usually I avoid any film that has Kevin Costner in the credits, but the premise of Mr. Brooks was far too interesting to pass up. To my surprise, Costner’s performance is welcoming. He does not try to be a showstopper, but merely plays the part with a quiet dignity. William Hurt plays his alter ego, the voice in his head that tells him to kill. We all have demons, but in this case, Mr. Brooks’ takes a physical form. He even has a name: Marshall. I was skeptical at first, thinking this character would only get in the way of the progress of the story, but it becomes quite an amusing addition to the film. Mr. Brooks has full-on conversations with Marshall in front of other people, but since they cannot see their exchange, Mr. Brooks is just a space cadet.
The other players are not as exhilarating, but they do their best. Dane Cook is out of character, in a genre he is not yet comfortable with. His transition into serious acting is not as smooth as comedians who have preceded him, but he is not altogether horrible. He portrays his character’s desire for excitement with some degree of subtlety. Still, he does find time to be his normal self, flopping around and making strange noises whenever he gets into a pickle. Demi Moore is not bad, but she’s not great either. Why the director chose to cast a big name in such a small role is beyond me.
It is not so much Moore’s performance that irks me, but the character she plays, Det. Tracy Atwood, and how much screen time she is given. Her subplot has its purposes, to an effect, but ultimately we could have done without her back story. Someone is trying to kill her, her husband wants all her inheritance money…who cares? The kidnapping and the gun fight make for sub par action scenes but they are seemingly out of place in a psychological thriller. And, since she is not the lead character, we do not feel for her, and the tension and anxiety that one would normally feel from such scenes is simply not present.
One cannot help but ask why Atwood is in the film as much as she is. If her role was reduced, it could allow for more back story on Mr. Brooks, who is the real reason why people chose to view this film. If someone wanted to hear about all the problems and burdens of being a cop, one could just turn on Network television. People who want to see Mr. Brooks want to hear the killer’s motivations, first kill, rituals, and so on. They do not want to hear about how an overworked detective with a silver spoon is getting robbed by her greedy ex-husband. That’s what soap operas are made of.
All the same, the film is still compelling, and serves up all the thrills that it promises. There’s always a lot going on, and the burdens pile up for Mr. Brooks, as he has to deal with an overzealous detective, a rebellious teenage daughter with a terrible secret, an irritating photographer who has the goods on him, and of course, a homicidal alter ego. And the film is not without its twists. Even the twists have twists, and they will keep your head spinning until everything folds into place; but even then you’re never fully at rest. The suspense will have your heart pounding, even when you have a slight idea as to what is going to happen, because right when you think you know, you in fact have no idea.
With all the events that build up and lead to the anticipated dialogue between Atwood and Brooks, hunter and the hunted, the viewer is left with great expectations that are never met. There is nothing gained, no new insight; just the ramblings of a female cop who always had something to prove. The final exchange between Brooks and Atwood may be disappointing, but the closing moments of the film are satisfying enough to make up for it. If you’re searching for a cinematic version of Dexter, or a film about what makes a serial killer, look somewhere else. This isn’t that film. It’s the kind of film that will stay with you for a few days (assuming you don’t watch a lot of movies), but you wont find yourself running to the video store to buy it.
The other players are not as exhilarating, but they do their best. Dane Cook is out of character, in a genre he is not yet comfortable with. His transition into serious acting is not as smooth as comedians who have preceded him, but he is not altogether horrible. He portrays his character’s desire for excitement with some degree of subtlety. Still, he does find time to be his normal self, flopping around and making strange noises whenever he gets into a pickle. Demi Moore is not bad, but she’s not great either. Why the director chose to cast a big name in such a small role is beyond me.
It is not so much Moore’s performance that irks me, but the character she plays, Det. Tracy Atwood, and how much screen time she is given. Her subplot has its purposes, to an effect, but ultimately we could have done without her back story. Someone is trying to kill her, her husband wants all her inheritance money…who cares? The kidnapping and the gun fight make for sub par action scenes but they are seemingly out of place in a psychological thriller. And, since she is not the lead character, we do not feel for her, and the tension and anxiety that one would normally feel from such scenes is simply not present.
One cannot help but ask why Atwood is in the film as much as she is. If her role was reduced, it could allow for more back story on Mr. Brooks, who is the real reason why people chose to view this film. If someone wanted to hear about all the problems and burdens of being a cop, one could just turn on Network television. People who want to see Mr. Brooks want to hear the killer’s motivations, first kill, rituals, and so on. They do not want to hear about how an overworked detective with a silver spoon is getting robbed by her greedy ex-husband. That’s what soap operas are made of.
All the same, the film is still compelling, and serves up all the thrills that it promises. There’s always a lot going on, and the burdens pile up for Mr. Brooks, as he has to deal with an overzealous detective, a rebellious teenage daughter with a terrible secret, an irritating photographer who has the goods on him, and of course, a homicidal alter ego. And the film is not without its twists. Even the twists have twists, and they will keep your head spinning until everything folds into place; but even then you’re never fully at rest. The suspense will have your heart pounding, even when you have a slight idea as to what is going to happen, because right when you think you know, you in fact have no idea.
With all the events that build up and lead to the anticipated dialogue between Atwood and Brooks, hunter and the hunted, the viewer is left with great expectations that are never met. There is nothing gained, no new insight; just the ramblings of a female cop who always had something to prove. The final exchange between Brooks and Atwood may be disappointing, but the closing moments of the film are satisfying enough to make up for it. If you’re searching for a cinematic version of Dexter, or a film about what makes a serial killer, look somewhere else. This isn’t that film. It’s the kind of film that will stay with you for a few days (assuming you don’t watch a lot of movies), but you wont find yourself running to the video store to buy it.
Knowing
Nicolas Cage's latest outing in futuristic thriller Knowing proves that he still has the eminence to rake in the big money...as long as he cuts his hair. With an estimated budget of $50 million, the film earned threefold at the box office, earning twice that of Cage’s previous sci-fi film “Next” and crushing the lackluster “Bangkok Dangerous”, which earned less than its production budget.[1][2] In both these films, Cage lets his long locks do the talking, but the only thing they tell us is that Nicolas Cage is not just committing a crime of fashion.
As far as his performance goes, well, it is hard to judge a man’s acting ability when the script tells him to hit a tree with a baseball bat and scream at aliens. He does his best to keep it together, and when it comes to freaking out and panicking, Nicolas Cage knows his stuff. Cage plays John Koestler, a professor at MIT who discovers a pattern in a series of numbers that predict world disasters. He convinces us to feel the overwhelming anxiety that comes with knowing when the world is going to end, but the frantic behavior and incessant harassment towards complete strangers makes us doubt his character’s sanity. Telling a woman you just met that her dead mother predicted the impending apocalypse is a lot to swallow, but Koestler approaches the situation as if it is a daily occurrence. Cage talks loud, chases blonde supermen into the woods, and attacks trees with baseball bats. Apparently no one told him that “Wicker Man” was done filming.
But the absurdity of Koestler’s irrational behavior cannot be put on Cage, for it is the script that has him doing such ridiculous things. In the writers’ defense, the other characters seem normal enough. The female lead, Diana Wayland, is played by Rose Byrne, who gives a surprisingly normal performance. She chooses to leave behind the weirdness she often brings to characters, and play a generic woman scared for her child’s life. The script is believable, but typical, as no one heeds the warnings that Koestler delivers. What? The FBI doesn’t take orders from anonymous men in phone booths?
Nevertheless, everyone eventually becomes aware of the impending disaster, and it’s at this point that the audience knows what will happen. This leaves us waiting for the world to end, and all the fire and explosions that one can handle. Though there are very few action sequences, it is enough to keep the viewer amused until the final explosive event, which is satisfying enough to compete with any Michael Bay film.
This is a thriller, after all, which makes it odd that the entire buildup leads to an effects-driven climax. Regardless, the film does have its thrills and chills, if one could call them that. The film has a creepy vibe to it, such as when the “whisperers” appear every so often with their psychotic stares, but after a few visits their scares become routine. The film leaves us with questions, but I’m not sure they are the questions that the filmmakers want to be asked. For instance, what is with the black pebbles? Their purpose is never revealed. Such a thing will only anger viewers and force them to search for the “true meaning” on online message boards. Or how come Caleb Koestler has a hearing aid? At first you think it helps him hear the “whisperers”, but then Abby Wayland hears them too. Was it so that Caleb and his father can have that cool sign thing together? Maybe it’ll catch on.
Overall, the film is viewable. It’ll most likely keep you entertained for a couple of hours, and when it comes down to it, that’s all we really want. We just want to escape reality, but the thing is, this reality is a lot scarier than our own. It’s gripping enough to keep us watching and keep us guessing, but only for so long. You want to know what happens, but it gets to the point in the film where you just want it to end so you can get on with your own apocalypse-free life.
[1] http://knowing-trailer.blogspot.com/2008/12/nicolas-cage-knowing-movie-trailer.html
[2] http://www.boxofficemojo.com/
As far as his performance goes, well, it is hard to judge a man’s acting ability when the script tells him to hit a tree with a baseball bat and scream at aliens. He does his best to keep it together, and when it comes to freaking out and panicking, Nicolas Cage knows his stuff. Cage plays John Koestler, a professor at MIT who discovers a pattern in a series of numbers that predict world disasters. He convinces us to feel the overwhelming anxiety that comes with knowing when the world is going to end, but the frantic behavior and incessant harassment towards complete strangers makes us doubt his character’s sanity. Telling a woman you just met that her dead mother predicted the impending apocalypse is a lot to swallow, but Koestler approaches the situation as if it is a daily occurrence. Cage talks loud, chases blonde supermen into the woods, and attacks trees with baseball bats. Apparently no one told him that “Wicker Man” was done filming.
But the absurdity of Koestler’s irrational behavior cannot be put on Cage, for it is the script that has him doing such ridiculous things. In the writers’ defense, the other characters seem normal enough. The female lead, Diana Wayland, is played by Rose Byrne, who gives a surprisingly normal performance. She chooses to leave behind the weirdness she often brings to characters, and play a generic woman scared for her child’s life. The script is believable, but typical, as no one heeds the warnings that Koestler delivers. What? The FBI doesn’t take orders from anonymous men in phone booths?
Nevertheless, everyone eventually becomes aware of the impending disaster, and it’s at this point that the audience knows what will happen. This leaves us waiting for the world to end, and all the fire and explosions that one can handle. Though there are very few action sequences, it is enough to keep the viewer amused until the final explosive event, which is satisfying enough to compete with any Michael Bay film.
This is a thriller, after all, which makes it odd that the entire buildup leads to an effects-driven climax. Regardless, the film does have its thrills and chills, if one could call them that. The film has a creepy vibe to it, such as when the “whisperers” appear every so often with their psychotic stares, but after a few visits their scares become routine. The film leaves us with questions, but I’m not sure they are the questions that the filmmakers want to be asked. For instance, what is with the black pebbles? Their purpose is never revealed. Such a thing will only anger viewers and force them to search for the “true meaning” on online message boards. Or how come Caleb Koestler has a hearing aid? At first you think it helps him hear the “whisperers”, but then Abby Wayland hears them too. Was it so that Caleb and his father can have that cool sign thing together? Maybe it’ll catch on.
Overall, the film is viewable. It’ll most likely keep you entertained for a couple of hours, and when it comes down to it, that’s all we really want. We just want to escape reality, but the thing is, this reality is a lot scarier than our own. It’s gripping enough to keep us watching and keep us guessing, but only for so long. You want to know what happens, but it gets to the point in the film where you just want it to end so you can get on with your own apocalypse-free life.
[1] http://knowing-trailer.blogspot.com/2008/12/nicolas-cage-knowing-movie-trailer.html
[2] http://www.boxofficemojo.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)