Showing posts with label stephen rea. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stephen rea. Show all posts

July 26, 2008

The Reaping (2007)

3/5

The Reaping was a surprisingly effective supernatural horror movie. The plot follows Hilary Swank as an atheistic zealot out to scientifically disprove all miracles. When a small, religious Louisiana town starts being struck down by what they fear are the ten Biblical plagues, David Morrissey asks her to go down and investigate. The plagues keep coming, and she finds herself at a loss to explain every single one. The townspeople don't, however; they blame it on a 12 year old girl who may be the devil incarnate.

The best part about this movie by far is its ending. The epiphany at the end, following by the obligatory final twist, was perfect. It made you rethink the entire movie in new terms, which is exactly what a twist should do. Unfortunately, the way it accomplished this feat was the worst part about the movie. Flashbacks. Terrible, convoluted, nagging flashbacks. In fact, when combined with the ubiquitous dreams and hallucinations, it was pretty difficult to understand what was real and what wasn't. Until the end anyway, and even then some stuff was still quite random and inexplicable. The second best part is the visual experience. Not simply its composition and cinematography, but its stunning, striking, shocking images and concepts that you will forever associate with the film. The second worst part is the acting and the dialogue. Though I actually liked Swank's character and performance, the rest of the cast remained unquestionably two-dimensional and forgettable. (I did like Morrissey's accent, though.) The third best part is the mood. It was frightening, to say the least, as the film effectively utilized both quick scares and unsettling ideas/images. The third worst part was an irrelevant and unnecessary intro detailing just what exactly Swank's job was (although it did have a cool House vibe). After all that, it ends up about even, although I definitely recommend it if you were ever interested in it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0444682/

April 29, 2008

Interview with the Vampire (1994)

2/5

I was pretty disappointed by Neil Jordan's Interview with the Vampire. It might be that I just don't like vampire movies, but I think the bigger reason is that I just don't like bad movies. Apparently the movie's sympathetic vision of vampires was revolutionary ... or something. It didn't seem that novel or interesting to me. It follows the story of Louis (Brad Pitt) over the past 200+ years after being turned by Lestat (Tom Cruise). Kirsten Dunst plays an angsty and needy teenage vampire and Antonio Banderas plays a suave yet flamboyant vampire. All of them are orgiastically homoerotic towards each other.

I'm sure there's a lot about vampire culture I don't understand, but the stuff I did understand wasn't very good. The story plodded along, the wooden dialogue stumbled forward, the actors didn't complement each other. The camera focused on meaningless gestures, the editing lacked purpose, and the movie felt like it took three hours. I had to stand up and walk around to stay awake, which annoyed every one else I saw it with. But as soon as I stopped walking around and sat down, I fell right back asleep. The positives: some interesting ideas and cool special effects. I'm sorry to say it, but don't bother with this movie unless your a vampirophile.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110148/