skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Synopsis:
A troubled youth starts filming his life just in time to capture his, and two other boys', discovery of an otherworldly object that will change their lives in ways they could never imagine.
Review:
Andrew is a prototypical high school wallflower. No one really notices him and when they do it's usually to punish him in some way. Nothing new for sure, but the twist this time is that it's presented in the found footage format. He's just gotten a video camera and the movie opens with him filming his bedroom door while his drunken father pounds on the door and screams at him to open up. So, Andrew has a rough time at home and school. His only "friend" appears to be his cousin, Mike, who gives him a ride to and from home every day. Mike feels kind of bad for Andrew, but still doesn't really want to be seen with him.
But, one night, Mike convinces Andrew to come to a party with him. He reluctantly agrees and, after being abused by various party goers, eventually ends up alone on the grass, crying over his unfortunate teen-aged lot. This is when super popular, soon to be class president, Steve rushes up to drag Andrew and the camera off to film Mike and his strange discovery. They climb into a hole in the ground nearly dragging Andrew kicking and screaming along. There they discover something strange that grants them amazing abilities.
The rest of the story deals with the inevitable changes that take place when someone gains extreme power. Mike and Steve deal better than Andrew, and Andrew's prior troubles lead him down a dangerous road wrapped in insecurity and fear. His new found powers make it too easy to lash out at any and all that even mildly threaten him, real threat or not.
Chronicle is basically a found footage super hero movie which, even though it's wrapping several tropes into one burrito of a movie, still feels refreshing enough. The shaky cam may get on some people's nerves but, at least on the small screen at home, wasn't too annoying. What was fun was to see how the film-makers took what was probably a relatively low budget and pull off the wonder of three kids discovering, and getting a grip on, some amazing abilities. The special effects looked good and the writing provided some great scenarios with which to showcase the possibilities. Andrew, in a nice touch that goes against the typical expectations, starts out as the hero, but pretty much ends up the villain. His cousin Matt, who was the popular kid, ends up having to make the tough choices for the good of others.
Another nice touch, which can honestly be a little far fetched at times in certain scenarios, is that every shot in the movie comes from someone's hand held camera. Originally just from Andrew's, but eventually from a classmate's, a tv crew, a police dashboard camera, or someone's cell phone camera. A few times it seems too convenient, other times very cool.
Chronicle has a a lot going for it in fulfilling a cool fantasy of what might happen with real world super-heroes. The characters are mostly believable, and Andrew is believable in what is the most likely outcome of some tormented teen suddenly becoming powerful.
7 out of 10
Not a mind-blowing movie by any means, but Chronicle feels new in its combination of super powered fantasy and the found footage genre.
Synopsis:
A young man acquires unexpected abilities and discovers his calling when he seeks to right the consequences of his irresponsibility.
Review:
OK, so I am rocketing towards becoming an old man and it's interesting to survey my interests to see how many things I dabble in that would be considered childish. I still enjoy video games, drawing "cool stuff", and I find myself continuing to look forward to the super hero movies, based on comics I have, admittedly, mostly grown out of. Now, it's pretty obvious why I grew out of most of the comics I read. While the work of the more talented artists, with Rob Liefeld leading the vanguard of their antithesis, would continue to appeal to my aesthetic sensibilities and appreciation for the skill of the artists, the lion's share of the writing is quite juvenile. So, I rarely read comics any more but I continue to have a strange hunger for the celluloid genesis of many of the characters I can no longer stomach in print.
The Amazing Spider Man was the most recent itch that had to be scratched. I had grown to dislike Sam Raimi's Spider Man trilogy over the ensuing years for their 50's pulpy twists, like close-ups of women screaming into the camera with hands pressed to each side of their face. The horribly over villained 3rd installment removed for pure badness, the first two were too filled with a certain sense of geeky awkwardness that didn't come as much from Peter Parker but from the choices of the film makers who just piled bad choices on until the films became an overbearing pastiche of 50's schlock, self conscious comedy, and the very juvenile writing that ruined comics for me to begin with. Now, admittedly, any comic movie is going to have a large serving of juvenalia that has to be mentally suspended. It just needs to be handled in an intelligent, adult-like, manner. Now, Chris Nolan's Batman movies approach juvenile fantasy with an adult touch.
I was curious to see if The Amazing Spider Man could start over again with a little bit more of a grounded, real world, adult edge to it. First off, I really do dislike reboots. Taking chances on original ideas is just too much work, right? And, sitting through Spider Man's origin story, AGAIN, was pretty tiresome. It makes sense that the film makers need to put their touch on it, but it's such a waste to sit through a good hour, or about $8 in modern movie terms, of a repackaged re-run. There were a few tweaks here and there, but it's mostly the same. The big difference, in this case, is that I actually like Andrew Garfield, as Peter Parker, more than Tobey McGuire. He was awkward, but still brash, and was just more fun to watch. But, again, I wanted to see something truly different.
So, the first real difference in the origin story is that they chose Gwen Stacey to be Peter Parker's paramour instead of Mary Jane Watson. Not a real biggie, but here's where The Amazing Spider Man really bugged me. Emma Stone was chosen to play Gwen and, while Andrew Garfield pulled off playing a teen relatively well and without blaring red lights, Emma Stone felt like she was even more mature than her actual 24 years of age, let alone 17. Now, it's not entirely her fault, but let me lay it out for you, and this is where the juvenile unimaginative writing, that really messes up potentially cool stuff for me, comes into play.
See, Gwen is, as a 17 year old, the main antagonist's right-hand man/intern. She orients visitors to the ground breaking work her mentor is doing with the poise of a woman in her mid-20's, has complete access (24/7) to all of the top secret files and areas of the lab she works in, again as an intern, and understands how all of the sophisticated equipment in the lab works, like a seasoned PhD. It's actually maddening. It makes so little sense, and is so unnecessary to the story, that I want to strangle the writers so badly. How hard would it be to give her the same job, but instead of giving her unfettered access to everything she needs, purely to make her more important and to move the story forward, that she is just a bright intern, with real world access, who uses her basic knowledge of the facilities and what the equipment does to work with Peter, combing their smarts, to break into the lab and "hack" stuff to get the job done? I'm not saying that's super realistic, but don't make it so that your story only works because you magically gift a 17 year old girl with the responsibility, poise, and knowledge, of a woman twice her actual age... It's preposterous and stupid, and it makes Peter's relationship with Gwen feel really off. You look at her and you see a mature woman. You look at Peter and you kind of feel like he's actually a young man who doesn't know what to do around girls. What's that add up to? Gwen goes through the entire movie looking like a cougar instead of a teenager.
A lot of other stuff happened in the movie, but all I kept telling myself was, "she's not 17." There would be a really nicely done sequence of spider FX and then Gwen would appear, and my brain would scream, "she's not 17!" That took me out of the moment quite a few times.
Other than that, and the slightly problematic fact that the villain wasn't that compelling and his motivation, and the visualization of it (in one instance, bunches of tiny lizards multiplying on a computer screen like a computer screen from the 80's instead of 2012)... Wait, that's a pretty big problem. That's what made Iron Man not nearly as cool as it should have been and what made an already bad movie, Green Lantern, even worse. You have to make your villains more villainous... more human... more real. The motivation to do bad things has to be more compelling than a lame 2 minute monologue about how the world's not fair. Instead of spending half of the movie telling a story you've already seen, spend that time making the villain more villainous, so that the moviegoer really wants that man-lizard to go down hard, instead of just enjoying the fireworks of a kind-of cool fight scene.
Spider Man has some real motivation, which most of the people lining up to see The Amazing Spider Man already know about. He screwed up. His indifference caused a loved one to get hurt. He tries to make up for it, at first for himself alone, and then for everyone else. Whatever bad guy the film makers choose, usually disfigured externally or internally, it takes more than ugly bad guy costumes or wild ranting to make the hero's victory feel something more than empty flash. This film fails in that respect, too.
However, I still enjoyed good bits of The Amazing Spider Man. The special effects were more convincing than the first trilogy. I don't think it's only because of improved technology, but art direction and choreography really make a difference, and I think the guys who did Amazing did a better job. There were some really great scenes of Spider Man doing his thing which made the popcorn elements feel rewarding enough to outweigh the obviously bad storytelling elements. The Amazing Spider Man could have easily been much better but I still rate it a...
6.5 out of 10
So, how does my split psyche come out of this? My adult side wants to see more intelligent and compelling script-writing, but my kid side still enjoys the well done WOW moments.
"Trucker" shows a woman living half of a life opening herself to a whole one
Synopsis:
A woman, who lives a solitary existence as a truck driver, struggles to come to terms with the fact that, maybe, she's ready to grow up after-all when her 11 year old son is dropped off at her doorstep.
Review:
'Trucker" starts out with some pretty ham-fisted character development. It lays out what's "wrong" with our protagonist, Diane, by showing her having sex with a good looking young guy. He wants to see her again, but she's having none of it. She's out the door and back on the road, not the least bit interested in connecting. She arrives home to a pile of mail under the door. She's rarely home. She ignores the answering machine. She's a hard drinker who physically drags her drinking buddy from his truck onto his porch. OK, we get it. She's hard.
I was a little concerned that "Trucker" was going to be a bit on the obvious side, but after all of this down and dirty character establishment, it settles down a bit and gets into a groove. Her son shows up without warning, because she's been ignoring her answering machine, when his step-mom has to leave town to attend to a family emergency. His dad is in the hospital. So, Diane is the only one who can take care of her son, who she hasn't seen since he was an infant. He clearly thinks poorly of the woman who abandoned him as a baby, and she wants absolutely nothing to do with him.
Now, it's really hard to write at length about this because it's not that complicated, but it's beautiful to watch. Diane is an impulsive creature that isn't really happy with herself although she insists everything is just how she wants it. She believes that everyone that matters wants more from her than she's willing to give and she pushes back, hard. But, in all reality, they really just want her, not a role that she's supposed to fill. Her son doesn't necessarily expect her to be a regular mom, he just wants her in his life. Runner, her best friend, who is clearly in love with her, only wants to be close to her. Diane fights and fights while slowly accepting that she's not who she thought she was. By accepting how she fits into other people's lives and their need for her, and not what she represents, or is supposed to do, she begins to think about what she chooses and how it affects those that love her. And, by choosing, she starts to become more than a piece of a person, never fully there, and more of a fully formed human being. It's great to watch it happen.
The film is shot well. The characters are convincing, and they are interesting to watch. There's some humor, but it's most surely a serious film. It's an odd sort of coming of age film that may hit home for some. I really enjoyed it and thought Michelle Monaghan did a fantastic job as Diane and is the most remarkable thing she's done by far. Nathan Fillion is his normal, affable, self, which is never difficult to watch.
"Trucker" is definitely worth watching if you're OK with observing several "normal" people trying to figure out how to live better lives and struggling a bit to do it.
Push is a stylish and gritty take on the super hero genre
Synopsis:
A small group of people, with different psychic abilities, fight to free themselves from the experimentation and exploitation that has made their lives a struggle.
Review:I remember reading the reviews for "Push" last year and dismissing it completely. It has an aggregate score of 36 on Metacritic, and that's usually well South of a score that I would entertain giving a shot in my most cooperative, let someone else pick, movie mood. But, somehow, or other, I ended up seeing it at home and am really sorry I wasn't tricked into seeing it at the movies, because I would have walked out pretty happy. Now, I'm not saying it's some world beating cinematic tour de force, but it was well shot, has a clever story, and was much more compelling than I ever could have expected it to be.
Nick, our hero, has been running from the secret government organization that killed his father for 10 years. Before he dies, his father tells him to look out for a certain thing and, no matter what, Nick had to follow it through. Why was his father killed, and why is he on the run? Well, Nick is gifted with telekinesis, which allows him to move objects with his mind and the government uses people like him to find the path to unlock the potential of these extraordinary abilities. They do bad stuff to them to make it happen.
There are others out there with similar powers to Nick's. While he can move things, others can see the future, heal, manipulate sound, create illusions, or alter people's memories. As we see him at the beginning of the movie, Nick gets by on gambling and parlor tricks that use his abilities, and he's clearly trying to keep a low profile. But, he's soon found by the agency that killed his father, and they think he can help them find something very important that's missing. After they are convinced he can't help them, they leave with the promise they'll be watching. As he packs up to go on the lam again, Cassie shows up at his door with the call to adventure!
So, why doesn't "Push" deserve an aggregate score of 36? There's rarely a time when someone says to me, "you have to look at it for what it is... A popcorn flick," and I don't scoff. It's the same with kids movies. "Ratatouille" is a "kid's" movie, and it's a fantastic film. There's no excuse for crap like "Alvin & the Chipmunks, The Squeekquel." Movies can be for some random audience or other and still be good. "Sherlock Holmes," I imagine, would be justified away as a popcorn flick. It had action, quippy dialogue, some sort of love interest thrown in to spice it up, and it was plenty shallow enough for those with a short attention span. But, the action wasn't that great, there wasn't much going on to care about, the love interest didn't have much chemistry. So, it fails as a popcorn flick because it didn't do what it was supposed to do very well... entertain. "Push," on the other hand, succeeds as a popcorn flick because it does what it's supposed to do, and very well.
It's full of action and quippy dialogue. It has lots of beautiful people, thus, a sheen of shallowness. And, there's romance. Why does it work? First of all, it's very nice to look at. The bright colors of Hong Kong at night create a beautiful palette with which to compose great action scenes, and help reinforce the drama. It's mixed with a gritty style that makes everything feel very intense. Every shot seems very thoughtfully composed and it's edited in a rhythm that is quite appropriate for the style of the film.
The characters, while being attractive in that typical popcorn flick way, all seem to have a weight to them that makes you care a little bit. Dakota Fanning, as Cassie, does a good job of being a girl way past her age that, under a veneer of toughness and bravado, barely contains her fear of the future that she sees. Nick genuinely seems to care about her as the film goes on. The characters convincingly work together because it really does seem like something's on the line. While all of the main characters have these special abilities, they are also very human, and it's shown quite well that they are relate-able. So, everything that happens has a little more emotional weight behind it.
The love story is reinforced by the events that surround it. Things happen to the characters that show the viewer that they have a real history that means something. We're not just told that they have a history and expected to build some believability around it in our own heads... the filmmakers went through some effort to convince us.
And, the action! Yeah, the action is cool. Maybe not everyone likes to see people with special powers, but this kind of escapism is perfect for the popcorn flick label, and I'm all for it as long as it serves a good story. There are all kinds of psychic pyrotechnics that add an excitement to the story that really drives it forward, and can put you on the edge of your seat. Nick's powers are cool to watch as he starts to get better at using them, and the penultimate showdown is very cool. And, none of them had to be wearing silly costumes to do it.
Finally, the story is executed in a way that keeps you guessing a bit how it will all work out in the end... an actual mystery of sorts. Everyone's powers work well in the story to make it happen, and that's rewarding to see play out to make it all work. The dialogue never seems like it's meant to be telegraphing what's happening, which is also a welcome relief. Sure it's pretty flashy, but the artistry and brains are there, and I like it.
I still can't get why it got such low reviews. Some of the critics seem to turn off their fun meter for things that deserve it, and turn it on for things that are irredeemable. "Push" is a clever, well shot, wolf movie draped in straight-forward action, lamb's wool, celluloid. I hope it makes it to some sort of cult status, cause I think it deserves it.
The world's best known detective is rebooted as an ass kicking adventurer more in the attitudinal vein of Patrick Jane than Conan-Doyle.
Synopsis:
A genius detective, bored with the 1 dimensional crimes he is continually asked to solve, is rejuvenated when an adversary, worthy of his intellectual prowess, apparently raises from the dead to wreak panic on London.
Review:
So, here we have another re-imagination, or reboot as they're so commonly called, of a beloved fictional character. I very loosely wonder if this has more to do with Hollywood's lack of new ideas, or a real hunger to see Sherlock Holmes' deductive prowess brought into the 21st century?
Alice, of recent "Alice in Wonderland" reboot, very clearly needed to slay a dragon, with a magical sword, in order to be hip to modern audiences. So, what would our venerable Holmes have to do to appeal to the Mountain Dew swilling masses? Well, be a master martial artist of course... who uses his deductive skills to beat an opponent soundly in his head, in slow motion, before he does exactly the same in real life, but much faster. Not only can he spot the odd red mud on the shoe that gives the killer away, but he can clearly derive how a fight will end simply by deducing the future! Wow, neat! Now, I know Holmes was mentioned to be a good fighter in the literature, but I don't think he was supposed to be Jet Li.
OK, so the first 10-15 minutes of the film are spent showing us how kick-ass Karate Holmes is. He beats the crap out of several guys... in his head, and in real life. So, we actually get to see him beat the crap out of several guys times 2 if you think about it... yeah. Oh yeah, we also see that he's smart and friends with another smart guy named Watson. He kicks butt too, but he's a little more dandy about it and all. As you can see, I'm devolving along with the film. So, there's this really scary guy who worships the devil, or something, and Holmes and Watson stop him from doing something that looks like the devil would really dig.
It's old school London so, instead of hanging the guy for attempted murder, they get him for black magic. All around this time it's clear that Karate Holmes is bored with all of the jilted wive, and petty thievery, boring crimes that Scotland Yard wants him to solve, so he shuts himself in his half of the flat, that he shares with Watson, and pretends to be a vampire. Whatever will get him to go outside? Well, the scary black magic guy asks to see Karate Holmes as his last request and, for some insane reason, tweaks our intrepid detective just enough so that he's, kind of, annoyed. And, whatever you do, you don't want to annoy Karate Holmes. Now, when our bad guy apparently slips the shackles of death, an annoyed Holmes has a bug up his butt about catching this guy. Black magic guy was clearly a dope for blabbing about all of the crazy crap he was going to do, but I guess we wouldn't have a movie if he wasn't... he would have just ruled the world and we'd all be members of some sphinx cult. If only he'd kept his mouth shut!
And, we're off and running with enough ammo for Holmes and Watson to run around for another 70 minutes and beat guys up, make clever deductions, get shot at, get blown up, have snappy exchanges with a Jersey Girl, and pretend to be Super Mario Brothers in a meat packing plant. I never knew Victorian era London was so exciting!
Seriously, the movie has a few funny moments here and there. The action is pretty mediocre. The characters are occasionally likable. But the story, oh the story... Detective stories work when all of the evidence is there for you to see but you're still shocked at the end, because you weren't observant enough to see all the pieces. "The Usual Suspects," or "The 6th Sense," come to mind as good recent examples. You see all of the pieces in Sherlock Holmes, and you pretty much know what's going on, and where it's going so, when they fill in the blanks at the end, there's really not much of a surprise. You hear a bunch of chemistry jargon that fills in the blanks that were, at this point, pretty small blanks, and you just wonder when Karate Holmes is going to beat another guy up.
The trademark, and foundation of what Conan Doyle inspired writers and readers to look for in a mystery, was almost wholly missing from this film. There was no "whodunit" and what we were left with was a pretty weak "howdunit" peppered throughout a slightly obscure, fast cut, action blockbuster. Hollywood really is nuts.
Guy Ritchie has still only made 1 good film (Lock Stock and 2 Smoking Barrels) and a lesser remake of that same film (Snatch,) but "Sherlock Holmes" goes on the heap with the rest of the sub so-so stuff he's becoming better known for. Downey wasn't great in this one, and Jude Law, for whatever reason, seemed a bit more likable as Watson. But, that's 2 movies in a row where I was thinking more about what I was going to be doing when the movie was over than getting lost in the world the filmmakers laid out before us, and 2 more examples of how it may be better for these properties to be left alone if they're not going to be given any justice.
Alice in Wonderland is the story of a charming girl, in a not-so-charming world.
Synopsis:
A young woman is about to be engaged when she stumbles upon a magical world she has unknowingly visited before. The inhabitants look to her for help against a tyrannical queen who has caused much suffering since they last saw her. The young woman struggles to find her inner strength to do the right thing; for them, and herself.
Review:
(Contains SPOILERS but, trust me, the outcome of the movie is never, for one moment, in doubt)
Now, Alice may not be charming in the normal sense, but I dig contrary and quirky girls with British accents. So, that was in the film's favor but, as we followed charming Alice down the rabbit hole, and through her rather traditional adventure, I found myself increasingly bored with the technicolor wasteland she was shrinking and growing all over.
"Why," you ask?
Well, let's start at the beginning. A 19 year old Alice, after a short flashback to her youth, and reassurance of the value of madness by her father (The 6 year old Alice asks her father if she is mad upon waking from a "dream" of Wonderland), rides to her surprise engagement party with her widowed mother. It's very quickly established that Alice is a woman ahead of her time... A rebel, Dotty, a loner. So, now that that was out of the way, what horrors would our modern woman in draconian times be subjected to? Well, her future betrothed is a vulturously hook-nosed, gruesome face-making, boor. I felt like I was being beaten with the obvious hammer. OK Tim Burton... Thanks for so subtly showing us that this was not the right guy for our spunky Alice.
Just before the magical proposal, Alice is dragged off, by her future mother-in-law, to be schooled on the fineries of her not-so-beloved's weak digestive system. Wow, this guy really sucks. Poor Alice! But, wait! The white rabbit appears and Alice is soon running off, to ultimately answer the question... "Will I marry this rich douche-bag?"
So, I felt like, to this point, I was being treated like an idiot. I was smacked across the face with Alice's undesirable circumstances... hard. How was it even a question when this guy was so horrendous, and Alice was so clearly an independent woman? Just say "NO." The end. Thanks for your 10 bucks.
But, there was another 80-some minutes to go, for those of us who need a really drawn out, charmless, adventure so we can watch Alice build up enough courage to say "NO." Now, there really are no spoilers here, because nothing is ever really in question. We're on a ride, on rails, that we've all been of before... no surprises here. Trust me.
Alice falls down the hole, goes through the same crap she did the first time, with the "drink me," "eat me," rigmarole. After-all, she's forgotten it all and it happens just the same. So, about that... the stuff repeated from the books, while trying to pawn the whole enterprise off as a new adventure; They have to squeeze some clever ideas into the film somewhere, because when your big, new, idea involves someone in armor, slaying a dragon, with a magical sword, you're probably not coming up with any on your own.
Alice in Wonderland is full of all kinds of distracting STUFF. And, it's all in the service of hiding the totally boring, and unoriginal, slay the dragon, be your own man/woman, paint by numbers film. Bright colors. Ugly creatures. Mean people. Nice people. Crazy people. As much weird stuff as possible. It's like a grocery list. You look at it and check stuff off... then throw it out. That's the problem with this movie and, honestly, the way I feel about most of Tim Burton's stuff. He throws a bunch of grotesque, shiny, baubles at you to distract you from the fact that there's not really much going on... no story, no charm, nothing that keeps you from squirming a bit in your seat, and thinking about what you need to do when you get home.
I found myself watching, not engaging, as Alice ran around, denied her destiny, inexplicably latched on to a freakishly unappealing Mad Hatter, in record time, and just fumbled on down the road to some pre-destiny that, since we knew it was going to happen anyway, kind of made the less than special journey to get to that pre-destiny, even less, um, special...er. So, she slays the dragon, says "no" to the guy, and there was never really any doubt from minute one. Yawn.
OK, I have to stop. But, a quick recap. Alice in Wonderland, is a poorly written, run-of-the-mill, story, wrapped up in a lot of empty color and noise. The characters, for the most part, are unappealing, and the art direction stages them in a charmless world. Add all that up and you've got a movie that's not all that fun to watch and doesn't deliver on a message that makes that lack of fun lead to some greater understanding of the world. Just say "NO."
What makes a good story? The Hero's Journey is often cited as the ultimate study of the blueprint for one. The story starts with what is known and comfortable to the hero. Then, a trans-formative situation occurs which presents a challenge. The hero then faces the growing challenge until the darkest hour is at hand. He must be reborn/transformed and overcome the challenge to finally restore the world to its rightful place. This archetype is powerful enough to be found at the heart of many successful films.
Now, "The Crazies" may not be the Hero's Journey exercised to its fullest, but it has plenty of it. The hero lives in an idyllic town where the grass is really green, the sky is really blue, and the whole town comes out to cheer the high school baseball team. But, something happens and the town is transformed into hell on Earth. The hero must overcome and save his pregnant wife and, at least in an effort to, deliver his family back to a normal life which had been so totally destroyed.
Everything that happens is horrible. Humanity unravels in a span of 48 hours and it becomes a fight for survival that seems all too distant to the hero. He is trapped and there seems to be little way out. We watch as the struggle plays out over 90 minutes and we see many terrible things. I found myself watching, and... well, that's what I was doing... Just watching. I cringed at the shocking visuals on screen and jumped at the scares, but that's all. I didn't care. I was just reacting. I thought about the elements of the story that would fit into the Hero's Journey... the destruction of what was "right" before, the struggle, the darkest hour, the ultimate destruction of the roadblock to the hero's escape. The pieces were there, but something key was missing.
And, the problem with "The Crazies" seems to be the same piece missing from many films... humanity. There was nothing in the film that was worth caring about beyond what the script may have told you to. They tried for the first 5 minutes but, after that, you just had to remember that they seemed nice enough in that first few minutes. For the other 85+ minutes, all I saw was: Good looking sheriff. Good looking wife. She's sort-of pregnant when it's convenient to the story. They're both smart... She's a doctor after-all, and he puts all the pieces together instantly. So, I guess we're supposed to give a shit based on a checklist, and a half-hearted stab at character building in the intro? If you don't even care enough about the main characters to dread their deaths, what's the point? This film was full of unsympathetic, poorly fleshed out caricatures... a town full of them. I won't care because I'm told to; I need to be compelled to. Cut the bullshit Hollywood and tell me a story I actually care about. In comparison, "The Road" was also a terribly bleak, and scary, film, but I was compelled to fear for the characters' loss of life and their humanity.
Ultimately, "The Crazies" is a shell of a story with a distinct lack of the humanity it takes to make it compelling. If you want to see mannequins running for their lives for 90 minutes, knock yourself out.
Synopsis: A small Midwest town is devastated by a biological weapon accidentally released into the water supply. The sheriff, and several others, struggle to survive as town-members fall victim to a virus that turns them into enraged killers; while the military moves to contain the incident with a heavy hand. This film is a remake of George Romero's "The Crazies," which was originally released in 1973.
Posts
