Five Days Of Saw: SAW V.

I'm getting it in with about 10 minutes to spare! But anyway, here it is. Again, if you haven't seen the previous movies, this one is spoilery.

----------------------

So you know how the plot synopsis for this movie was so bare-bones and everybody thought it was because they didn’t want to spoil anything? Well, the truth is that that’s about as basic as you can actually put the plot, as it’s freakin complicated otherwise. Detective Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) has ‘survived’ and moved on from the end of Saw IV (the trap portion of the movie, not the autopsy portion, which is actually never even referenced in this film), and has set himself up to be the Jigsaw case’s savior and be a big hero, even though he’s the new bad guy. The only snag is that Agent Strahm (Scott Patterson) has survived and is on to much more than Hoffman likes. So meanwhile, while Hoffman is chasing after Strahm, who is tracing the steps of Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) and his past victims, another game is going on in which five individuals (including Julie Benz and Meagan Good) have to go through a set of rooms and face a set of traps, one by one.

There’s a new director in town, and it does show a bit. There are no fancy camera tricks, transitions, or editing techniques, which is really sad (well, maybe one or so, but that's about it). In fact, there’s even a bit of CGI, which is totally out of the Saw realm. So the usual Saw feel with the cool camera and editing tricks was gone. However, it wasn’t completely bad. It still worked for what it was.

One big negative aspect, however, belongs to the plot. Everything about the movie was either predictable, obvious, or an overall ‘duh’ moment. Most of the revelations or twists in the Saw series are mind-altering experiences that tend to blow you away. Not this time. The twist isn’t anything massively important or mind blowing. It’s just kind of there. And any of the other revelations were so easy to figure out it’s like they weren’t even trying to hide it like the others did. Hell, the opening game lines for the five people practically spells it out for them (and I knew it right away), yet when they figure it out, it’s like some huge ordeal. I don’t know if it’s the movie that was predictable or that it was just the way the story was unfolded that made it too obvious. Maybe a mix of both. Oh… and the thing with Jill was just weird… but I figure that’s something that’ll be explained in the next one.

On the subject of the traps, some of them were pretty cool. Like the trap that introduces the five people was quite inventive, and I enjoyed it quite a bit. Most of the others (for the few there were), were somewhat lame, though. Imaginative, sure, but lame.

Yet again, though, the continuity saves the film. This film pulled what it did with the last couple and has just totally gone back to the first, second, and third films and re-shown stuff that fit in so smoothly it was like things were filmed simultaneously. I just loved how everything was connected and how everything just worked together so that a lot of things made even more sense than they did before.

The acting was another notable positive, especially from Tobin Bell (as always). The entire scene/first flashback between him and John/Jigsaw was so amazingly well done… I don’t think there’s any way it could have been done any better. Tobin Bell really is a saving grace of this series. If it weren’t for him and what he and his character brings, these movies would be flat-out terrible.

So after a year of waiting, all I’m doing now it waiting for the final chapter of the series. This one was alright, mostly due to the flashback stuff/continuity that it holds. I was a bit upset that it never referenced the whole autopsy scene (even though that’s what the last movie ended with). But who knows, maybe that scene happens after the events of Saw V, as well (I doubt it, but it’s possible). They referenced Dr. Gordon so much and hinted so many things that I could have sworn it was coming this time around, but alas… maybe they’ll end it with him to go out on a bang. Unfortunately, in order to get there, we had to do this one. It wasn’t terrible, but it wasn’t the best of the series, either. I bet like one of the previous movies, it’ll grow on me after numerous viewing… but until then... yeah. The tagline of the movie was “You’ll never believe how it ends.” Yeah, and I really couldn’t believe it ended like that. It could have done better.


I Am McLovin!


The following segments involve spoilers:

Questions Raised Thus Far:

- Who the heck was the guy in the drill-to-the-neck trap and what did he do (Saw)?

- What the heck ever happened to Dr. Gordon's wife and daughter (Saw)?

- What the heck ever happened to Dr. Gordon (Saw)?

- As such, now that we know he turns survivors into apprentices, will he do the same with Dr. Gordon (after all, the -surgeon- in the video at the beginning was -limping-); Also, now that we know survivors can also be re-gamed, will Dr. Gordon just be used for another game (Saw II and Saw IV)?

- What the heck happened to Danny Matthews (Saw II)?

- How is Obi connected to Jigsaw, as he helped him gather all the people into the house, and as he's seen running in a flashback near John and a woman (Saw II and Saw III)?

- What is that key to that was around Amanda's neck (Saw III)?

- What the heck was in that box given to Jill (Saw V)?

Questions Answered Thus Far:
- Does Jigsaw just let Amanda go live her life now that she survived?
(He turns her into his apprentice)
- Does Adam just die of starvation, dehydration, and/or blood loss?
(Amanda kills him via suffocation).
- What's with all the pig stuff?
(John was obsessed with Chinese New Year and made his first victim during the Year of the Pig).
- What the heck happens to Detective Matthews now and/or is he still alive?
(He escaped capture, was re-captured, and kept alive to be used in one final game, wherein he died).
- Who is that woman in the flashback?
(John's ex-wife, though then-wife, Jill)
- What was in that envelope that Amanda reads?
(No specifics, but we know that Hoffman wrote it... according to the director, that's all we need to know).
- What happened to Jeff after the end if Saw III?
(He was shot by Agent Strahm immediately afterwards).
- What was with that wax-coated tape?
(John swallowed it so that it could be found during his autopsy in order to begin a new game with Hoffman).
- What happened to Jeff's daughter?
(Hoffman brings her out to safety).
- Is Agent Perez still alive?
(No).
- Was Rigg being set up as a new apprentice and/or is he still alive?
(No... because he's dead).
- What was with that box of glass in one of the flashbacks?
(It was for a 'trap' and/or safety case for Strahm)
- What happened to Agent Strahm since he was locked in the room with Jigsaw's body, though we know Jigsaw is eventually found due to the autopsy?
(He found a door, got put in a trap, saved himself, and was found by the police, along with Jigsaw's body).

Five Days Of Saw: Saw IV.

Yup... you know the drill by now. If you haven't seen the previous three, consider this spoiler-town.

----------------

When I first saw this one in theater, I really didn’t know what to think about it (except quite a few negative things), mostly due to its confusing and overly complicated nature. Like the others, the movie picks up right where the previous left off with John/Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) getting an autopsy. Then it flashes over to a couple other guys in a coliseum-type place, chained together, one with his eyes sewed shut and the other with just his mouth sewed shut, who are to fight to the death (because they can’t seem to work together). Then there’s the story of Detective Rigg (Lyriq Bent), the only one left on the original team who is still alive/active. He’s been recruited to play the next Jigsaw game, which is to have him think/act like Jigsaw thinks/acts in order to save the still-alive Detective Matthews (Donnie Wahlberg), as well as the captured Detective Hoffman (Costas Mandylor). Meanwhile, Special Agents Strahm (Scott Patterson) and Perez (Athena Karkanis) are trying to find Rigg and stop things once and for all at all costs, including questioning John’s ex-wife, Jill (Betsy Russell).

Again, like I’ve mentioned in previous reviews, the best things about this movie are the camera work/editing and the continuity (and Tobin Bell’s acting). Not only does it connect things/people back to Saw 2 and 3, but it continues to explain countless things about John’s history, from the clown doll to the pig obsession and even more on how he became the way he did. I haven’t seen any other horror/thriller series that’s put this much backstory and time into their villains in order to make them so deep and involved. You can’t say Jigsaw is a shallow villain, because every little detail about him is explained, every little psychological tick is explored.

The other characters aren’t as deep, unfortunately. Sure, Rigg has been around since the second movie, but he hasn’t ever had this much screen time before now. More of his psychology was explored, though, but nothing beyond the surface level.

And while I loved the story and character depth this film portrayed (because this one was almost entirely about story and characters over blood and traps), the part that messed everything up for me was the twist ending(s). I’ve always said a twist can either make or break a film, and this one nearly breaks it. First of all, there were two main twists, and one of them was highly predictable. The other twist wasn’t even plot related, but instead chronologically/development related, meaning that there were no clues or anything to help the audience along. And by the time you realize what’s going on, you still have no idea. I was confused for so long after I saw the film for the first time and had no idea what had just happened. That’s not a good thing.

However, the movie continues to grow on me with every viewing. I focus more and more on the character depth and story development instead, and I also understand the ending, so it isn’t as annoying as it was the first time I saw it. If I would have reviewed this last year when I first saw it, it would have had a much lower score. But now that I’ve seen it a few times now and can review it with a more opened mind, it’s gonna be relatively higher than it normally would have been. For that reason, and that reason only, it’s getting the following score.

I Am McLovin!


The following segments involve spoilers:

Questions Raised Thus Far:

- Who the heck was the guy in the drill-to-the-neck trap and what did he do (Saw)?

- What the heck ever happened to Dr. Gordon's wife and daughter (Saw)?

- What the heck ever happened to Dr. Gordon (Saw)?

- As such, now that we know he turns survivors into apprentices, will he do the same with Dr. Gordon (after all, the -surgeon- in the video at the beginning was -limping-); Also, now that we know survivors can also be re-gamed, will Dr. Gordon just be used for another game (Saw II and Saw IV)?

- What the heck happened to Danny Matthews (Saw II)?

- How is Obi connected to Jigsaw, as he helped him gather all the people into the house, and as he's seen running in a flashback near John and a woman (Saw II and Saw III)?

- What is that key to that was around Amanda's neck (Saw III)?

- What happened to Jeff's daughter (Saw III)?

- Is Agent Perez still alive (Saw IV)?

- Was Rigg being set up as a new apprentice and/or is he still alive (Saw IV)?

- What was with that box of glass in one of the flashbacks (Saw IV)?

- What happened to Agent Strahm since he was locked in the room with Jigsaw's body, though we know Jigsaw is eventually found due to the autopsy (Saw IV)?

Questions Answered Thus Far:
- Does Jigsaw just let Amanda go live her life now that she survived?
(He turns her into his apprentice)
- Does Adam just die of starvation, dehydration, and/or blood loss?
(Amanda kills him via suffocation).
- What's with all the pig stuff?
(John was obsessed with Chinese New Year and made his first victim during the Year of the Pig).
- What the heck happens to Detective Matthews now and/or is he still alive?
(He escaped capture, was re-captured, and kept alive to be used in one final game, wherein he died).
- Who is that woman in the flashback?
(John's ex-wife, though then-wife, Jill)
- What was in that envelope that Amanda reads?
(No specifics, but we know that Hoffman wrote it... according to the director, that's all we need to know).
- What happened to Jeff after the end if Saw III?
(He was shot by Agent Strahm immediately afterwards).
- What was with that wax-coated tape?
(John swallowed it so that it could be found during his autopsy in order to begin a new game with Hoffman).

Five Days Of Saw: Saw III.

Again, spoilers ahoy if you haven't seen the previous films.

----------------

I always felt Saw III was one of the more simplistic to explain in the series, but after seeing it yet again, this time with a review in mind, I’ve realized how complicated it actually gets. This movie picks up right where the previous left off (like… exactly), where Detective Matthews (Donnie Wahlberg) is trapped in the bathroom. Then it switches over to show a few other detectives, including Detective Kerry (Dina Meyer), Detective Rigg (Lyriq Bent), and Forensic Detective Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) are investigating a new supposed Jigsaw victim, thinking it could be the missing Detective Matthews. But then they aren’t even sure it’s Jigsaw, but instead maybe a copycat, because there would have been no way for the victim to have survived. Enter at least one more (really cool) scene with Detective Kerry, then switch over to Lynn (Bahar Soomekh), a doctor with apparent husband troubles. Well, she gets kidnapped and set up by Jigsaw/John (Tobin Bell) and Amanda (Shawnee Smith) and is told to play a game, which is to keep John alive long enough for yet another person to finish yet another game. Enter Jeff (Angus Macfadyen), an alcoholic who lost his son to, ironically, a drunk driver that didn’t get (according to Jeff) the punishment he deserved. So all of this plays all together while, simultaneously, we are entreated to flashbacks that further explain John’s history, Amanda’s history, and some other things from the first Saw movie.

First I have to talk about the continuity. Love or hate these films, they have some of the best freakin continuity of any film series ever. It’s almost as if each film were done at the same time or with everything in mind, when none of that is true (the only things they had in mind while filming any of these were dealt with things in Saw 3 and 4). But there is some seriously amazing continuity and explanations, which is one reason I completely love this series. It’s not about the traps for me, really, but about the story and the characters and how everything fits together. It’s all like a big jigsaw puzzle (pun intended), with each movie adding another piece to the overall puzzle.

Anyway, about this movie specifically, my opinion is that it’s a few notches below the first. It concentrates more on plot and characters than traps and gore, though there is some intense stuff. It’s more like a mix of the first and second, with heavier influence from the first. Unfortunately, the twists (sans one) were all incredibly easy to figure out. As for the traps themselves, only one of them has ever bugged me, which is the freezer trap. There’s no way she can get into the state she got into like that in such a short amount of time in the predicament she was in (to be vague). It just seemed way too fantastical for me.

Otherwise, the only other comments I have are with the camera and editing again. It’s some really cool stuff. There’s more quick shots like in the first one, and there’s some more one-shot transition scenes, which are really awesome (for instance, toward the beginning, there’s a crime scene area where the camera hangs out around in and goes through, then it goes down the room, through the hall, and ends up in a house and in a bathroom to show Detective Kerry in the bathtub, even though she was just at the crime scene. According to the commentary, she had to run backstage, strip her clothes, and jump into the bathtub in that whole quick bit, just in time for the camera to see her already in the water. Brilliance). So yeah, it’s not as brilliant as the first one, but it’s one of the better ones in the series thus far (in my opinion).

A Keanu 'Whoa'

The following segments involve spoilers:

Questions Raised Thus Far:

- What's with all the pig stuff (Saw, Saw II, and Saw III)?

- Who the heck was the guy in the drill-to-the-neck trap and what did he do (Saw)?

- What the heck ever happened to Dr. Gordon's wife and daughter (Saw)?

- What the heck ever happened to Dr. Gordon (Saw)?

- As such, now that we know he turns survivors into apprentices, will he do the same with Dr. Gordon (after all, the -surgeon- in the video at the beginning was -limping-) (Saw II)?

- What the heck happens to Detective Matthews now (Saw II) and/or is he still alive? (Saw II and Saw III)

- What the heck happened to Danny Matthews (Saw II)?

- How is Obi connected to Jigsaw, as he helped him gather all the people into the house, and as he's seen running in a flashback near John and a woman (Saw II and Saw III)?

- Who is that woman in the flashback (Saw III)?

- What was in that envelope that Amanda reads (Saw III)?

- What is that key to that was around Amanda's neck (Saw III)?

- What happened to Jeff after the end (Saw III)?

- What happened to Jeff's daughter (Saw III)?

- What was with that wax-coated tape (Saw III)?

Questions Answered Thus Far:
- Does Jigsaw just let Amanda go live her life now that she survived?
(He turns her into his apprentice)
- Does Adam just die of starvation, dehydration, and/or blood loss?
(Amanda kills him via suffocation).

Five Days Of Saw: Saw II.

Warning: This review contains some spoilers, mostly only if you haven't seen the first one yet.

----------------

What happens when you take a good premise and add a new director/writer to its sequel? In my opinion, you get one of the weakest installments in the series. Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) is still on the loose, though not due to a lack of trying from Detective Kerry (Dina Meyer), Detective Rigg (Lyriq Bent), or Detective Matthews (Donnie Wahlberg). This time, however, Jigsaw’s newest victim brings Detective Matthews to the forefront, teasing clues in front of his face until he decides to come and find him. And when he finally does, Jigsaw reveals not everything is as easy as just taking him in. In fact, in another room are some security monitors that show a select group of people locked inside a dilapidated old house including previous victim/survivor Amanda (Shawnee Smith) and Detective Matthews’ son, Daniel (Erik Knudsen). The people in the house have three hours until the front doors open; unfortunately, they only have two hours to live with a deadly neuro-toxin coursing through their bodies, though the antidotes are spread throughout the house (within various traps). But if Detective Eric Matthews wants to see his son again, all Jigsaw wants him to do is sit and have a little chat. It’s too bad the detective has a bit of an anger issue and finds that a bit harder than anticipated.

As I said, I feel that Saw II is one of the weakest installments in the series thus far. And when most people think of the Saw films, their minds always seem to think more along the lines of this movie than the first. The reason for that is because this movie deals more with the traps and gore than it does with plot and character. Each character in the house, with the exception of Amanda and to an extent Daniel, is a very flat character with no real given story. Detective Matthews is at least somewhat complex, or else he would be had he not continually resorted to violence over and over again and had no real character growth (though, technically, that’s the entire point, so I can’t really fuss on that). I think the only reason the movie is still enjoyable is because Leigh Whannell stuck around as a co-writer and executive producer/advisor (I believe former director James Wan stuck around as an executive producer, as well).

And even though this movie is far more disturbing/bloody than the previous, its traps are still only few and far between. All the traps shown are really just the opening Venus flytrap, the gun, the furnace, the needle pit, and the hand trap (and in essence, the house itself and its inhabitance could also be considered traps). The only one to show any blood are the first two and the last one (and the coughing caused by the toxin, but that’s nothing), and even those are relatively mild due to zippy editing. Though there is a bit of weaponry used, too, but still…

And speaking of editing, this movie still does it very well, even with a new director. In fact, this new director makes use of even more interesting camera transitions and whatnot, where an actor can start on one set and end up on another without the camera cutting. I know he tries to do it at least a couple times in each movie, and I think that’s really cool. However, on the brief subject of music, I think the Saw theme wasn’t used to its advantage here and was used in the wrong spot of the film.

And then there are the twists. There are three of them in this movie, and I remember figuring out two of the three in theater. The one that I thought was the cleverest (because it’s the one I didn’t figure out) was the one involving Daniel, but I won’t go into specifics, just in case.

I know I’m speaking quite negatively about this one, but I don’t hate it. The acting is good, especially with Tobin Bell. He acts circles around everybody else in the entire series, and I think the whole thing would fail epically without him. I just think that the movie should have focused more on character and plot, like they did in the first film, instead of focusing on the traps and gore. Fortunately, there was a Saw III to fix this up… but until then, I was stuck with Saw II.

I Am McLovin!

Other reviews:
Here is a review by a fellow blogger who shares my sentiments (and more) on this film. Be cautioned, though... his review is a lot more spoilerific than mine, as it's along the lines of a comedic summary: Invasion of the B Movies: Saw II.

The following segments involve spoilers:

Questions Raised Thus Far:

- What's with all the pig stuff (Saw and Saw II)?

- Who the heck was the guy in the drill-to-the-neck trap and what did he do (Saw)?

- What the heck ever happened to Dr. Gordon's wife and daughter (Saw)?

- What the heck ever happened to Dr. Gordon (Saw)?

- As such, now that we know he turns survivors into apprentices, will he do the same with Dr. Gordon (after all, the -surgeon- in the video at the beginning was -limping-) (Saw II)?

- What the heck happens to Detective Matthews now (Saw II)?

- What the heck happened to Danny Matthews (Saw II)?

- How is Obi connected to Jigsaw, as he helped him gather all the people into the house (Saw II)?

Questions Answered Thus Far:
- Does Jigsaw just let Amanda go live her life now that she survived?
(He turns her into his apprentice)
- Does Adam just die of starvation, dehydration, and/or blood loss?
(We know he dies, but are unsure how).

Five Days Of Saw: Saw.

It was a movie that started a franchise; a film that I felt was so freakin predictable that I was blown out of my seat by it’s stunning ending. Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes) and Adam (Leigh Whannell) wake up in a grungy, filthy bathroom, chained by their ankles on opposite ends, and with a body in the middle of the room in a puddle of blood and a gun in his hand. They discover that they’re in a game set up by Jigsaw, a man who sets ungrateful people up in fatal traps/situations in order to get them to further appreciate life to its fullest. Along for the ride are the paranoid Detective Tapp (Danny Glover), the hospital orderly Zep (Michael Emerson), Detective Kerry (Dina Meyer), Detective Sing (Ken Leung), and a list of other victims, including survivor Amanda (Shawnee Smith). But the current situation shows Dr. Gordon and Adam that they have until a certain time to follow the rules set up, and the rules are thus: Dr. Gordon’s wife and daughter are being held captive, and if he wants to be set free and see them again, he must find a way to kill Adam before time runs out. And how can he get free if he needs to? Well, there’s a pair of hacksaws that can be used to cut off your foot and set you free…

When I first saw this movie, I thought I had it figured out before I even reached the halfway point. I thought it was going to end like every other Hollywood horror movie, wherein the twist at the end was overly simple to figure out, the good guys would get free, and everything would end just fine. Boy was I wrong. Not only did nothing end happily ever after, but the twist ending quickly joined what I feel is the top five twist endings of all time.

The movie is in no way, shape, or form torture porn, as most ignorantly label it. Hell, it’s only moderately gorier than your weekly episodes of CSI. The traps in this movie are pretty tame, especially in comparison to the later movies. And it isn’t killing for the sake of killing. Jigsaw is actually a pretty well thought-out character (again, especially as shown in the later films), and he only sets traps up for people who are wasting away their lives in order to teach them appreciation and self-respect. This movie is intelligent horror, not brainless blood and death.

The acting is usually the wobbly ground for most people. Either Cary Elwes or Leigh Whannell are the big complaints, but I personally didn’t see any major issues with either of them. And for two guys with thick foreign accents (British and Australian, respectively), they both held American accents nicely (though if you pay close attention to the opening scenes, you can hear Leigh break accent once or twice). I also think Michael Emerson can play a really intense character no matter what he’s doing (see: LOST).

And then there’s the cinematography and music. The way the camera is used in these films, along with editing techniques, is like an art form (well… it is… but you know what I mean). From the intensity of the Reverse Bear Trap scene with Amanda to the now patented “Seizure flashback” that occurs at the end of each film, the camera/editing is done masterfully. Coincidentally, as I write this, the main Saw theme started playing on my playlist, just in time for me to bring up the music! The main theme is now classic, to me. It’s even being used in other film trailers (much like another modern classic theme from another movie, Requiem for a Dream). I really adore this theme song, from it’s slow build to it’s huge crescendo, increasing and increasing further until the massive shocking end, then BAM, it ends, just like the film. Thank you Charlie Clouser for creating such a hauntingly amazing theme.

So overall, this is one of my favorite horror/suspense films. It has a great story, great cinematography, great editing, great music, and a great ending. There’s really not much else I can say about this first film. I really recommend it.

Royale With Cheese

The following segment involves spoilers:

Questions Raised Thus Far:

- What's with all the pig stuff?

- Who the heck was the guy in the drill-to-the-neck trap and what did he do?

- Does Jigsaw just let Amanda go live her life now that she survived?

- What the heck ever happened to Dr. Gordon's wife and daughter?

- What the heck ever happened to Dr. Gordon?

- Does Adam just die of starvation, dehydration, and/or blood loss?

MAX PAYNE.

Most of the reviews I’ve read out there for this movie have been from huge fans of the video game. Well, now you have one from somebody who has never even played the game at all. Three years after Max Payne (Mark Wahlberg) lost his wife and baby to robbers/murderers, he’s still on the case trying to find the third member of the people who did it. Along the way he gets help from his old partner, Alex (Donal Logue); a mysterious woman, Mona (Mila Kunis); an old friend, BB (Beau Bridges); and a detective, Jim Bravura (Chris ‘Ludacris’ Bridges). They slowly start to discover that his family’s murder is tied to another set of gruesome murders that are linked together by some kind of Valkyrie tattoo and drug.

I’m not exactly sure what to say about this movie. It was bizarre, to say the least. As for characters, none of them show much of any development with the exception of maybe Detective Bravura, but that’s mostly because of how his character figures things out. The character of Mona seems random and unexplained. I had no idea who or what she was (Super gangster? Assassin? Government?) until I read up on the imdb summary that she was an assassin. Nothing about her character is explained, and her sister seemed to only be there as a plot device. The same thing went for Alex; he was only in the movie for plot development and nothing else. There were other characters like this, too, but I’ll leave it at that for now. And another thing that was never explained in too much detail were the Valkyries. Were they real or just hallucinations? It was as if some of the stuff could have been explained had they been fake, though some of the things would be pushing it. And if they were just hallucinations, why push their involvement so much toward the ending? Just for neat special effects?

And speaking of special effects, they really were done very well. Visually, the movie was amazing, from the special effects to the cinematography. Though I was kind of upset with the fact that the awesome ‘snow-on-the-gun’ scene as shown in the trailer wasn’t in the movie. I know exactly where the scene would have been, too, but it looks like they used a different (and less cool) cut. Oh well. But they did almost overuse slow motion/bullet time. And I don’t mean that in the way that it was all over the place, but rather when it was used, it was used for too long at a time. For instance, in one scene where Max bends backwards to shoot somebody, the whole thing is in slow motion, so a scene that normally would have taken one or two seconds takes nearly an entire minute to get through.

To take this a step further and discuss acting, I would have to say that it actually wasn’t bad. Everybody did a pretty good job, from Marky Mark to Ludacris and even Mila Kunis (though she seemed to be a bit awkward in the role of a badass). Oh, and the random appearance by Chris O’Donnell was fun. I hadn’t seen him in a movie since… hell… he played Robin. And even he did a pretty good job for his small role. And are there any Heroes fans out there? There’s a brief scene (seriously, about 10-15 seconds) that has the actress who plays Daphne in the new season. At least, I swear it was her. Anyway, that was just a random catch.

The biggest negatives that the movie has been getting have dealt with the super slow beginning and/or lack of action. The trailer shows the movie to be this non-stop, sci-fi /horror, action flick, and it isn’t. The whole first half of the movie is mystery/noir, and it builds up very slowly. However, this didn’t really bother me too much. But then again, I don’t mind some slow mystery to my action movies and don’t need non-stop mindless explosions for it to be a good film. The last half of the movie, though, is where the action really picks up, and it’s all pretty cool, though I think the climax was highly underdone and could have been a lot more fulfilling.

Overall, it was an interesting, though slightly confusing at times, movie. It could have done with more character development and a bit more explanations of things, as well. Also, that ‘almost-nudity’ toward the beginning was harsh. It reminded me a lot of Underworld 2 wherein the camera was in just the right spots to miss exactly everything. It was a rough PG-13 anyway… it should have pushed it a little further. But that’s just me. It wasn’t the greatest movie in the world, but definitely not the worst. And if you know Norse mythology (like me), or you’re just observant, the first big twist in the movie won’t really come as a shocker. And if you’re a fan of movies whatsoever, the second twist won’t come as a shock, either, because it’s the kind of thing that’s pulled all the time. Otherwise, fun action and great visuals.

I Am McLovin!

QUARANTINE.

Ever since I saw [REC], I've been highly anticipating this movie. Now that I've finally seen it, I can review it... sort of. I'm going to do something different with this review (and possibly a little lazy). Because the two movies are practically the same (hell, even the setting looks exactly the same), with only a few differences, I'm going to paste my review for [REC] and make a few commentaries on it to see whether or not things have changed (the exception is the movie summary, which is the same, but with different actor names in the parenthesis, and a couple different character names). To avoid confusion, I’m replacing the name Pablo with [Scott], who is the cameraman in each respective version.

Quarantine is about a young television reporter, Angela (Jennifer Carpenter), and her cameraman Scott (Steve Harris), who are filming a night in the life of the local fire station. She teams up with two of the firemen, Jake (Jay Hernandez) and Fletcher (Johnathon Schaech), and discovers how firehouse life is actually quite boring on average. But when they get a middle-of-the-night call to an apartment complex about an elderly woman giving blood-curdling screams, Angela, Scott, and their firemen acquaintances make their way to the building. However, upon reaching the place, they discover something else much darker than they were expecting is happening. The elderly woman bites a policeman and one of the firemen, and the entire complex suddenly find themselves in the middle of a government quarantine with no explanation as to what is going on or why. But all they know is that there are two dying men who need to get to a hospital and a very sick little girl with a fever. And everything slowly becomes more and more chaotic from there.

[I have to say, this movie was intense. It started off kind of slow, but once they reached the apartment complex, the pace picked up considerably before dropping off for a little bit, and then hitting hard again non-stop to the end. My adrenaline was constantly pumping, my heart going fast, and I even jumped a few times.]

This still holds true. In fact, the fire station stuff seemed to be even longer in this version, though there was a lot more comedy this time around to get through it. However, whereas the original bounced in pace, this one never really slowed down much after it hit the apartment complex.

[However, one of the movie’s major downfalls is that it focuses primarily on the intensity and not the characters. The only characters I really had any kind of feeling for were Angela and [Scott]. There are a few introductions to characters during the middle slow part of the movie, but not enough to really get a good feel for them. You know they’re just there to raise the body count. The movie would have been much better had they extended the incredibly short length of the movie (it clocks in, without credits, at less than 80 minutes) in order to focus more on character development.

If you haven’t figured it out yet, this movie is shot in a similar fashion to The Blair Witch Project, Cloverfield, and Diary of the Dead (except it was out before the latter two). But as I said, it didn’t have the same character focus that, say, Cloverfield had. I didn’t care about [Scott] in the same fashion that I cared about Hud. But enough about the characters.]

This was remedied slightly in this version. However, while Quarantine does have the brief interview section that the original had, it’s much shorter and doesn’t get around to all of the people within the complex, making for even fewer times to get to know the other characters. But on the other hand, I felt for the fireman Jake and the policeman, as well, which I didn’t feel in the original version. Also, the cameraman Scott (Pablo in the original) is actually shown quite a few times, unlike in [REC], where he’s not shown at all. I felt this made for more of a personal connection, letting us at least see him a couple times (like with Hud in Cloverfield).

[The visuals of the movie are really good. There are some cool shots and angles, and quite a few less-is-more approach shots, in which you only see quick glimpses before the camera pans away, or you only hear noises. There are some great uses of the camera, as well, such as the night vision and the camera light (much like in the subway scene of Cloverfield). Though there was a rewind/fast-forward sequence that didn’t make sense, because as far as I’m aware (though I could be wrong), you can’t record yourself rewinding and fast-forwarding.]

My favorite scene from the original (the upper window into medical room sequence) made it into this version, so that made me really happy, though I think it was filmed better in the original. Also, I was incredibly happy with the fact that the one scene goes toward the whole rewind/fast-forward scene (just like in the original), but then doesn't show it and just cuts to the next scene. It's like they listened to me on that point! Overall, I think the camera work was pretty equal to the original, though this version didn’t mind showing more gore and whatnot, and it never cut away as quickly.

[As for the zombies, they look really creepy from what you see of them (like I said, quick glimpses). Though they’re almost more like The Infected from the 28 _____ Later films, except I would moreso argue that these are actually zombies, unlike the ones in those films. The origin of the zombies is somewhat attempted to be explained, but isn’t fully done so, which I think is nice. Movies that try to explain their monsters sometimes end up hokier than they would have been otherwise. Instead, it leaves it more up to speculation.]

As I said, you do see a lot more of them in this version, though only by a little bit. And here’s where I have my biggest comments. The entire explanation was changed for this version, and I find that very intriguing. In the original, it was a very religious explanation from what was shown, which was very little. In this version, a lot more explanation into what was going on was given, and it was totally scientific instead. So I think the switch from religion to science in the adaptation from Spanish to American is highly interesting. And because of this switch, the zombies are totally different. They start like something from one of the 28 ______ Later films, but then become more zombie-like (with the whole dead and coming back to life thing, which doesn’t happen in the aforementioned films). But they still act more like The Infected, and the reasoning isn’t too far off from those, either. So it’s really odd, but it works.

[The acting is done really well, mostly from the lead actress, [Jennifer Carpenter]. I really didn’t notice many (if any) parts that really brought me out of the movie due to poor acting.]

I’d have to change this up for the new version. Jennifer Carpenter started to get really annoying towards the end. Her constant freaking out and screaming and whining started to really bug me. There was also one poorly acted part from the main police officer. Otherwise, the acting was well done. I’d say the best performance went to the man behind the camera, Steve Harris.

Overall, it had some parts better than the original, and some parts that the original did better. I’d still recommend both, but for a few different reasons. I think they build off each other. Though they end exactly the same way, and the trailer does, indeed, completely ruin the movie. I mean… completely. Other than that, it was a pretty intense movie, and I was pretty engrossed by it the entire time. So yeah… fun stuff.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

BLINDNESS.

So, I finished reading the book, and I finally saw the movie. And now to compare the two and review both the book and the movie (but moreso the movie). When a man (Yusuke Iseya) suddenly goes blind at a stoplight, an apparent good Samaritan (Don McKellar) takes him home to the man’s wife (Yoshino Kimura)… and then proceeds to steal his car. The First Blind Man’s Wife takes her husband to the eye doctor (Mark Ruffalo), who can’t find anything wrong with the man’s eyes, and also finds it peculiar that the man sees white instead of black, and he relays this peculiarity to his own wife (Julianne Moore). But when all of these people and more—including the Man with the Black Eye Patch (Danny Glover), the Woman with Dark Glasses (Alice Braga), and a young Boy (Mitchell Nye)—with the exception of the Doctor’s Wife go blind, everybody suddenly believes this white blindness has become some contagious epidemic. The government begins quarantining people in a run-down insane asylum wherein they don’t give enough food, medical help, or assistance of any kind, and will shoot somebody if he/she even gets too close to them or the exit. And when a hoodlum deems himself the King of Ward Three (Gael García Bernal) and demands payment for food, the place begins an even quicker spiral into a living hell than it was already on.

I would like to start off saying this: I’m still in awe at how very close this movie stuck to the book. It kept in even the littlest details or tiniest bits of dialogue. Of course, it did cut and change a few things, but most of those changes or cuts made the movie better for it, and were things that oftentimes barely even worked in the book the way they originally were. Such changes were the focus on the downward slopes of the relationships between the Doctor and his Wife, as well as the one between the First Blind Man and his Wife. The book just threw in little disjointed bits here and there, while the movie did a much better job at working with it and building on the idea. They also gave more personality and slightly more screen time to the King of Ward Three (who didn’t even have that title in the book, but it fits just the same).

I don’t want to bore you by listing all the similarities and differences, but I do want to make one big note on a change. The book’s biggest downfall is its third act. For over a hundred pages, it just dribbles on and on seemingly without end about absolutely nothing. Thankfully, the movie doesn’t do this. It keeps in a lot of details from the third act, but cuts out just enough as to where I’m not bored to death. I wouldn’t have minded seeing the old crazed woman at the Girl with the Dark Glasses’ apartment building, but it would have only prolonged the movie’s closure and served little purpose. But still, I was very glad that the movie altered the third act just enough so it would work much better than it did in the book.

However, this also brings up some issues with the film as both a movie and an adaptation. I’m not sure if it’s because I’ve read the book or if it’s just as a movie-goer that I have this opinion (especially since this is the biggest issue I’ve read about in most reviews thus far): the movie seems to have lost something in translation. It doesn’t have the same power or oomph as the book does. Perhaps it’s because the book likes to go off into philosophical rants, and a movie can’t exactly do that. However, it might have helped to add a bit more grit and grime to the film. The movie didn’t even touch the disgustingness and grittiness of the book. The asylum and even the streets later on in the movie were considerably cleaner and much less disgusting or disturbing as described in the book. But then again, my sister, who hadn’t read the book, felt it was gritty and disgusting enough as it was, so I could just have a biased opinion here.

So enough on the adaptation level (at least for now), let’s focus on it as a film. Did it work? Yes, I think it did… but only if you don’t go in expecting some Hollywood thriller (like pretty much every person in my theater, from the ghetto crew at the back that left halfway through to the annoying people right behind us) and actually enjoy good cinema and films that make you think. The pace, just like the book, starts off slow and is a slow burn into the suspense and craziness before topping off and then easing back into the slow-paced philosophical stuff.

The cinematography made me smile quite a bit, because it was filmed almost exactly how I would have imagined it to be in my head (not the settings and stuff, but the camera and lighting stuff). It were as if the book gave directions on how to film or light certain scenes, because in reading, I thought things like “Oh, it would be cool if they filmed it like this…” and then, to my surprise, it was filmed exactly like that (and seriously, how often does that happen?). There was a lot of playing with white and black/light and dark, just as there should have been.

The acting was done really well, though my biggest complaint came as quite a surprise. Danny Glover’s acting during a specific voice-over scene (which, again, is exactly how it played out in the book) came off as really fake and a bit annoying. But otherwise, the acting was done very well, I thought.

I also have to take my hat off to the screen writer. I would have thought that making this book into a film would have been highly improbable a task, especially with how it was written. But not only did it happen, but it stayed amazingly close to the book (I’m sure you’re sick of hearing that by now), only to differentiate at the most appropriate times, seemingly where the book had the most issues. However, one issue with the writing was in the characters. In the book, although it had some issues with character development, you still got to know the characters and their different relationships very well. Every character was rather deeply written, especially the Woman with the Dark Glasses, and that seemed to be removed from the film. Same goes with Danny Glover’s character and The First Blind Man, both of which seemed to have much bigger roles in the book. They all became flatter versions of themselves (though the only one I didn’t mind in changing was the Boy, who got rather annoying in the book). However, where the movie lost in depth, it gained in development, so I guess there had to be some kind of trade off.

I’m not sure what else to really focus on here. To me, the movie could have been grittier (though I think it was, and the director had to edit it a lot in order to appease some people. I wouldn’t mind seeing a Director’s Cut). That was my biggest complaint, really, and maybe a bit more character depth and a way to include some of the more philosophical depth that the book had. Other than those things, I thought the movie was great. And if you enjoyed the book, like I did, there’s almost no way you won’t enjoy the film, as it’s a near perfect (not quite, but near) adaptation.

A Keanu 'Whoa'