There are a few different contexts in which the devil shows up in pop culture. One, which as of late seems to have been forgotten by the movie industry, is in the Louisiana Voodoo context in which Satan has a southern drawl and is surrounded by acts of sacrifice, hexes and shrines with animal bones etc. Angel Heart, a Robert De Niro classic, capitalizes on this sort of Satanic representation and does so with a noirish approach following a private detective played by Mickey Rourke. Rourke is initially sent to investigate a debt long overdue, but in time realizes what he's chasing is his own identity guided by none other than the dark lord himself.
I'll admit that the voodoo approach rarely instills the feeling of horror i crave from a satanic premise, but horror wasn't the focus of Angel Heart. I never felt the feeling of loss that horror movies take advantage of because we were always under the watchful protection of Rourke's charming character. The way he interacted with people, and the way he went about his investigation was comforting, giving us the sense that he was always in control. This feeling of trust was reinforced in every aspect of the storyline until the ultimate conflict, which was simply the question of whether his actions were of his own choosing or at the will of Satan.
Highly recommended for those who appreciate darkness.
4/5
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
TV Series: Kings
A few weeks ago I discovered the browse shows option on Hulu and found a few shows cancelled in their first season that should've gotten at least a second chance. The first i happened upon was Kings. It wasn't the concept that attracted me to this show rather the presence of Ian McShane as the primary character. After watching the HBO Deadwood series McShane has my full attention with anything he chooses to do.The characters he portrays are unbelievably good, full of passion and charm, but with the ability to cut your throat without hesitation.
The show's premise is simple: Modern society under the rule of a monarchy with challenges as large as battling the current war with a neighboring nation and as small as family disputes between the King and his wife and children. The show initially comes off a little soap opera-esque, but the linear storyline definitely keeps you interested with plot twists coming often and unexpectedly. My favorite aspect of the show was the strong theme of fate and it's hold on reality. There were many times in the storyline that a "sign" was revealed to lead a particular character through a conflict. It's a very attractive and unique concept when contrasted to the directionless reality we inhabit.
McShane is certainly the driving force of the show with younger actors following his lead and from my opinion they do a damn fine job. After the 13 episodes of it's first season i wanted there to be much more to delve into, but alas, NBC aborted and the show was lost forever. After doing a little research apparently most of the reason the show was cancelled was due to poor advertising leading up to the premier, which is certainly true from my perspective considering i hadn't heard of Kings until i stumbled upon it now, but i'm certiainly glad i did and would recommend it to anyone.
The show's premise is simple: Modern society under the rule of a monarchy with challenges as large as battling the current war with a neighboring nation and as small as family disputes between the King and his wife and children. The show initially comes off a little soap opera-esque, but the linear storyline definitely keeps you interested with plot twists coming often and unexpectedly. My favorite aspect of the show was the strong theme of fate and it's hold on reality. There were many times in the storyline that a "sign" was revealed to lead a particular character through a conflict. It's a very attractive and unique concept when contrasted to the directionless reality we inhabit.
McShane is certainly the driving force of the show with younger actors following his lead and from my opinion they do a damn fine job. After the 13 episodes of it's first season i wanted there to be much more to delve into, but alas, NBC aborted and the show was lost forever. After doing a little research apparently most of the reason the show was cancelled was due to poor advertising leading up to the premier, which is certainly true from my perspective considering i hadn't heard of Kings until i stumbled upon it now, but i'm certiainly glad i did and would recommend it to anyone.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Movie: Avatar
So... After all the negative opinions surrounding this film, i finally sat down and took it in, trying to be as open and unbiased as possible.
First i'll explain the flaws as i saw them:
1) Poor casting: Namely Giovanni Ribisi and Sigourney Weaver. As Parker Selfridge, the commander of the operation on Pandora, Giovanni had hopes of playing a shallow business man looking at the bottom line of a financial transaction, but with his whiney voice and weak delivery he came off spineless and never posed any threat as the primary villain.
Sigourney had intended to play the harsh but motherly scientist, but this was also lacking because she came off as cold and somewhat detached. Of course this could have been easily avoided with a very simple amount of character development, but alas, such a thing was never attempted.
2) Forced Dialog: There were several moments in this film where a character would say something that was obviously intended to describe them but seemed out of place in natural dialog. Stephen Lang (the colonel) had a few of these moments, where he was saying things that fit the character of a "badass," but with no reason and with little effect on whoever he was talking to.
3) Flexing 3D muscle: Some scenes were obviously only part of the movie because they would look neat in 3D, which in my opinion defeats the purpose. As soon as you notice something like that it removes you from the experience, reminding you that you're just watching an illusion rather than being immersed in the environment.
4) Music: I'm not sure why Cameron would skimp on something that caused great success before. I mean we all remember that god damn Celine Dion song (Titanic) no matter how much we want to forget it. There was nothing even remotely memorable in the score for Avatar and that's a real shame.
Now for the pros:
1) Real human emotion: With Avatar i really think Cameron has combined the basic strengths of two summer movie creators: Michael Bay and Michael Mann. Bay obviously for the effects, but Mann because of the emotion. Although Mann has flopped on his most recent movies i've always thought his presentation of human expression evokes empathy in the viewer on a level not many artists can achieve. Cameron has demonstrated this a few times before, but this is his strongest example. There were moments between the main character and his love interest that i felt what they were feeling, even under all the CG of an alien face which is unbelievably impressive. The technology and creativity they used to capture human expression and convey it through an artificial face must have been astounding. So props; I felt something Cameron.
2) Originality: There were some creative quirks presented that really surprised me. The one that stood out the most was the connection the alien race had with their environment, not only on a spritual level, but on an actual physical level where they would literally plug into their environment and feel what each creature was feeling. This allowed for a really novel presentation of the evidence of actual spirituality and evidence of an afterlife in the form of a large tree that captured the memories of ancestors long dead. Really neat imagery, really beautiful idea.
3) Confirming Zoe Saldana as a fox: I explained before the detail in human expression from these aliens. Well, this girl comes off as down right sexy even though we never see her actual face or body. Just awesome. And she's my nomination for best performance in the film. Her war screams and desperate cries were spot on.
The last thing I'll mention is a really substantial risk Cameron took writing this:
4) Hatred for American culture and the killing of a butt-load of enlisted men as a statement: I understand that this movie was at the heart a social commentary against the slash and burn mentality of the US, but damn did a lot of innocent men die in this film. I had some mixed feelings about this mostly because i was relating to the alien race more than the human race, but i think it was deliberate and constructed to do exactly that; to give the viewers mixed feelings and provoke them to ask questions. A pros list aspect for sure.
So, yes, it had flaws, but i'm tired of pretentious people sticking their nose up at this film, especially those who refuse to see it. It's just a movie, and it's certainly one worth seeing and talking about.
3/5
First i'll explain the flaws as i saw them:
1) Poor casting: Namely Giovanni Ribisi and Sigourney Weaver. As Parker Selfridge, the commander of the operation on Pandora, Giovanni had hopes of playing a shallow business man looking at the bottom line of a financial transaction, but with his whiney voice and weak delivery he came off spineless and never posed any threat as the primary villain.
Sigourney had intended to play the harsh but motherly scientist, but this was also lacking because she came off as cold and somewhat detached. Of course this could have been easily avoided with a very simple amount of character development, but alas, such a thing was never attempted.
2) Forced Dialog: There were several moments in this film where a character would say something that was obviously intended to describe them but seemed out of place in natural dialog. Stephen Lang (the colonel) had a few of these moments, where he was saying things that fit the character of a "badass," but with no reason and with little effect on whoever he was talking to.
3) Flexing 3D muscle: Some scenes were obviously only part of the movie because they would look neat in 3D, which in my opinion defeats the purpose. As soon as you notice something like that it removes you from the experience, reminding you that you're just watching an illusion rather than being immersed in the environment.
4) Music: I'm not sure why Cameron would skimp on something that caused great success before. I mean we all remember that god damn Celine Dion song (Titanic) no matter how much we want to forget it. There was nothing even remotely memorable in the score for Avatar and that's a real shame.
Now for the pros:
1) Real human emotion: With Avatar i really think Cameron has combined the basic strengths of two summer movie creators: Michael Bay and Michael Mann. Bay obviously for the effects, but Mann because of the emotion. Although Mann has flopped on his most recent movies i've always thought his presentation of human expression evokes empathy in the viewer on a level not many artists can achieve. Cameron has demonstrated this a few times before, but this is his strongest example. There were moments between the main character and his love interest that i felt what they were feeling, even under all the CG of an alien face which is unbelievably impressive. The technology and creativity they used to capture human expression and convey it through an artificial face must have been astounding. So props; I felt something Cameron.
2) Originality: There were some creative quirks presented that really surprised me. The one that stood out the most was the connection the alien race had with their environment, not only on a spritual level, but on an actual physical level where they would literally plug into their environment and feel what each creature was feeling. This allowed for a really novel presentation of the evidence of actual spirituality and evidence of an afterlife in the form of a large tree that captured the memories of ancestors long dead. Really neat imagery, really beautiful idea.
3) Confirming Zoe Saldana as a fox: I explained before the detail in human expression from these aliens. Well, this girl comes off as down right sexy even though we never see her actual face or body. Just awesome. And she's my nomination for best performance in the film. Her war screams and desperate cries were spot on.
The last thing I'll mention is a really substantial risk Cameron took writing this:
4) Hatred for American culture and the killing of a butt-load of enlisted men as a statement: I understand that this movie was at the heart a social commentary against the slash and burn mentality of the US, but damn did a lot of innocent men die in this film. I had some mixed feelings about this mostly because i was relating to the alien race more than the human race, but i think it was deliberate and constructed to do exactly that; to give the viewers mixed feelings and provoke them to ask questions. A pros list aspect for sure.
So, yes, it had flaws, but i'm tired of pretentious people sticking their nose up at this film, especially those who refuse to see it. It's just a movie, and it's certainly one worth seeing and talking about.
3/5
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Movie: Thirst
Great choice after getting through Daybreakers. Another vampire movie but with real emotion, real human conflict and an intimate look into Korean culture. It's a ground up movie beginning with the original creation of the vampire, a priest, then following him through denial then acceptance while interacting with characters along the way. The most important supporting character, his love interest, is equal parts charming and psychotic, which is a perfect complement to the priest's somewhat peaceful approach. The priest's inner conlfict takes center stage for most of the movie, but mixed with great acting from the supporting characters, odd, sometimes surreal plot twists and the final scene, this is a focused, balanced instant classic in the vampire movie genre.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Movie: Daybreakers
Spoilers for sure, beware:
I saw a trailer for this a while back and it somewhat piqued my interest. I know the resurgence of vampire movies is getting a little bit overwhelming but being a big fan of the classics (Dracula, Nosferatu) and an advocate of all things dark and bloody, I generally keep an eye on any new entries into the genre of Vampire Movie (except the twilight bullshit, fuck that)
The setting in this one is what sets it apart from the rest. The storyline begins at a point where most of the world is inhabited by vampires and there is only a very small percentage of the human population left for the vampires to feed on. The idea is unique and certainly screams social commentary, but the execution falls somewhat short. I see this scenerio happen to a lot of ambitious films. The premise is new and exciting, but the writer spends too much time explaining the situation and not enough time creating a sense of intimacy with the characters and the plot. Instead of feeling like we're following the characters closely through a series of conflicts, we're forced to take a passive observatory role, not really caring what happens to the characters or being curious of where the plot is going. This is how I felt most of the way through Daybreakers even though Willem Dafoe did all he could to save the weak scripting job.
Another thing that bothered me was an introduction of a few rules of being a vampire, not that i'm against new rules (i'm all for innovation on an old idea) but the over-simplification of them ruined any credibility. The first rule: You can become a human after being a vampire by sitting out in the sun for just the right amount of time before being baked. This one is pretty sketchy considering the point at which the story takes place. You'd think a couple vampires would discover this some time before the entire world was inhabited by them and the idea that a dead organ, your heart, would just start beating again after years of being dead... probably not.
Second rule: Once you become human after being a vampire, your blood will turn any vampire who bites you back into a human. This is just a simple reversal of the original rule of if you're bitten by a vampire you become a vampire, which is a nice thought, but this one just seems like a simple plot device to return the vampire population back into humans.
To sum up, human life is complicated. Vampire life should be just as complicated, so any simple explanations are just hard to believe, even if we're dealing with the most ridiculous of fantasies.
Good atmosphere, a couple good ideas, poor execution.
2/5
I saw a trailer for this a while back and it somewhat piqued my interest. I know the resurgence of vampire movies is getting a little bit overwhelming but being a big fan of the classics (Dracula, Nosferatu) and an advocate of all things dark and bloody, I generally keep an eye on any new entries into the genre of Vampire Movie (except the twilight bullshit, fuck that)
The setting in this one is what sets it apart from the rest. The storyline begins at a point where most of the world is inhabited by vampires and there is only a very small percentage of the human population left for the vampires to feed on. The idea is unique and certainly screams social commentary, but the execution falls somewhat short. I see this scenerio happen to a lot of ambitious films. The premise is new and exciting, but the writer spends too much time explaining the situation and not enough time creating a sense of intimacy with the characters and the plot. Instead of feeling like we're following the characters closely through a series of conflicts, we're forced to take a passive observatory role, not really caring what happens to the characters or being curious of where the plot is going. This is how I felt most of the way through Daybreakers even though Willem Dafoe did all he could to save the weak scripting job.
Another thing that bothered me was an introduction of a few rules of being a vampire, not that i'm against new rules (i'm all for innovation on an old idea) but the over-simplification of them ruined any credibility. The first rule: You can become a human after being a vampire by sitting out in the sun for just the right amount of time before being baked. This one is pretty sketchy considering the point at which the story takes place. You'd think a couple vampires would discover this some time before the entire world was inhabited by them and the idea that a dead organ, your heart, would just start beating again after years of being dead... probably not.
Second rule: Once you become human after being a vampire, your blood will turn any vampire who bites you back into a human. This is just a simple reversal of the original rule of if you're bitten by a vampire you become a vampire, which is a nice thought, but this one just seems like a simple plot device to return the vampire population back into humans.
To sum up, human life is complicated. Vampire life should be just as complicated, so any simple explanations are just hard to believe, even if we're dealing with the most ridiculous of fantasies.
Good atmosphere, a couple good ideas, poor execution.
2/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)