Tag Archives: twist

The Cabin in the Woods The Cabin in the Woods 3 star

April 21st, 2012 by surlaroute

Tags: , , , , ,

For a movie touted as a game changer, Cabin in the Woods is more than happy to play by the rules.

I don’t know what exactly happened to change things, but for the past few years I’ve always intended to get to the movies more and see things ASAP but it just never really worked out. This year I’ve kind of attacked that goal with a passion and it seems to be a good year for it, with “must-see” movies like this coming out each week now for the foreseeable future. It’s likely that if I’d waited more than a few weeks to see this one, I would’ve approached it with far more apprehension and cynicism than I did today. I’m pretty good at avoiding spoilers and I managed to do so in this case – aside from the poster featuring said cabin revolving in layers like a giant impossible rubik’s cube and the buzz all over about spoilers in itself really threatening to spoil the experience (recalling the episode of The IT Crowd, “Moss and the German” – Roy’s “don’t tell me there’s a twist, I’ll be guessing what it is all the way through!”), I had very little idea what was coming as the movie began. I have to be honest: I don’t know what difference it really would’ve made if I had known everything. The spoilability of this movie has been grossly overstated, possibly to its detriment. But I’ll try my best here not to say too much.

Cabin in the Woods is a movie unmistakably made by people who love horror movies and want desperately to do something new with the genre. Comparisons to Scream are inevitable and its reference points unending (I wrote down a bunch of titles but decided not to list any of them here because they’re all a bit of a giveaway). From the off, and for a good chunk of its running time, it plays with one of horror’s most worn out situations, succinctly put by the very title, The Cabin in the Woods. It retreads this trope so well, in fact, that it kind of gets boring. There’s an intercut mysterious subplot (which contains some very subtle and well played exposition that pays off at the end) but I have to admit, I spent most of the first hour thinking, “really? this is it?”

But Cabin in the Woods is not about the setup. Cabin in the Woods is about the pay off: the less about which you know, the better.

One poster in the UK has a gigantic quote on it calling it a “game changer”, a phrase I hate almost as much as the word “canon”. Unless you actually take the last shot of Cabin in the Woods to signify this as the last word in the horror genre as we know it, ushering in a whole new era (spoiler: it isn’t), there’s no sense in which this film is a game changer. Trust me, for all its creators’ knowledge of the game (which isn’t all that impressive – we’ve all known all of this since Scream whether we saw it or not – it’s mostly basic storytelling anyway), it is more than happy to play by the rules. Until the genuinely “well I haven’t seen that before” finale (you’ll know it when you see it), this movie is really no better than the genre clichés it purports to being “above”. Some will argue that this is partly the point, but I mostly found it lacking.

So on the one hand the more you like horror movies – the more you really like horror movies – and the more you know horror movies, the more you are likely to enjoy Cabin in the Woods. On the other, the more you really like and know horror movies, the more likely you are to have seen everything it does (except that one shot – where the elevators open, that’s all I’ll say) done better. If I was 17, the age I was when I first saw Scream, and had as limited (though ample) experience of the past 10 years of horror as I had then of 70s and 80s horror, I’d likely be gushing over this as much as I did then over Scream, and I imagine that’s the audience which will embrace the “game change” moniker and love this movie the most. And because it does that one shot so well, I’m frankly able to let that slide.

The one thing I do hope the final shot signifies is that Whedon and Goddard have no intention of turning Cabin in the Woods into a franchise – it’d be easy, yes, just run through all the other possibilities – but dull as dishwater now we’ve seen the elevators open. (Addendum: immediately after I posted this I saw the word “prequel” on Twitter. I didn’t think of that. Gagh.)

Images Images 3 star

September 21st, 2010 by surlaroute

Tags: ,

“What got into you last night? Maybe I should say ‘who‘…”

I was hoping a second viewing of this would help me to review it but I can’t really say it did, lol. This isn’t to say I didn’t find it just as fascinating, though. This is a psychological horror by Robert Altman that I hadn’t even heard of until last year when I planned to watch it on Halloween. I never got around to it and it lay in my “to watch” pile all this time. It became more pressing when I saw it being mentioned a lot in discussions about Inception … you know, those “what are the most confusing movies ever?” articles etc. I was right to wait until I really had the time and attention to spare for it… but like I say, I still found it pretty tough to follow.

It starts simply enough with Susannah York as a children’s author frequently left alone at home by her husband. She receives a phonecall from a strange woman who asks, laughing, “do you know where you husband is tonight?” and further suggests he may be having an affair. So far so simple. It doesn’t take long for the movie to launch into its unique brand of insanity. When the husband returns, she quizzes him but he calms her. They kiss, but their lips part, he’s become another man entirely. This becomes a frequent occurrence in the movie with York’s character Cathryn seeing the wrong face on a character (this, incidentally, is mirrored in the character names, which are just the actors’ names mixed up a little).

The middle act consists of Cathryn hallucinating (or not?) further, seeing the “ghost” of a man she had an affair with before he died 3 years previously, and a visit from the neighbours, a lecherous man who can’t keep his hands off Cathryn and his 12-year-old daughter. The “ghost” suggests she shoot him, which she does, but only destroys her husband’s camera in the process. She’s not so lucky with subsequent attempts to “kill” her demons.

I’m almost inclined to say something similar of this as I did about *Inception*… that is, that sure it’s all very clever, but once you put it all together it’s really not, and it never really draws one in emotionally. But what I loved here from the outset was the atmosphere. The movie is beautifully photographed (a good thing, considering the title) and features a stunning score by John Williams notable mainly for how little it sounds like a John Williams score. All through it is Susannah York’s performance. While I stand by the fact that I never felt emotionally involved, York just feels so right for the role and you feel glad that this performance was captured. She reads a children’s book of her own creation throughout in voiceover and it adds even further to the haunting tone. It’s by no means a masterpiece but it is a fascinating oddity that I suggest you keep an eye out for.

“What’s the difference between a rabbit? Nothing. One is both the same.”

Shutter Island Shutter Island 3 star

July 1st, 2010 by surlaroute

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

This movie is the cause of my complete blockage on the review front as I watched it about a month ago and simply refused to believe it left me so blah and with so little to say. I decided to wait until I was ready to give it a second chance. What can I say? I’m still left completely empty.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s stuff to like here. There’s so much, in fact, that this is almost the reason it frustrates me so to feel so underwhelmed by the whole. I want to love this movie. Scorsese does a Shining-like horror? I’m there! And the movie begins so wonderfully ominous, that stock music, the slightly-fake rear-projection on the boat reminding me as much of Hitchcock’s Vertigo as just a little of the opening of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull that thrilled me so.

The first time I watched, I lost interest fast. I think I was gone before the very first concentration camp flashback. I did better the second time, holding on to the plot for a good hour before the same thing pretty much happened again. I think my problem with this movie is that it shouldn’t need so much effort to follow, and I realise that some people will take that as in indication of my general intelligence but I’m still saying it. It’s a B movie through and through and Scorsese seems to know it… so why is it nearly 2 and a half hours long and so convoluted when the best it has to offer by way of resolution is Ben Kingsley with a stick literally pointing at a board that shows all the main characters names are anagrams of each other? (oops… SPOILERS)

After much reading of other people’s various interpretations of the story, I think I finally understood the variety of things I was evidently supposed to feel about DiCaprio’s journey in the movie, but I’m afraid to say I simply felt none. The final flashback revealing what happened between him, his wife and his children hit me harder the second time, I will give it that… DiCaprio’s pain in this scene is hard to bear and it’s the one place in the movie where the madness is truly scary… but it comes in the midst of so much nonsense, all of it seeming to take itself far too seriously, that it still didn’t fully sit well with me. I was more frightened by the implications of the twist at the end of James Mangold’s Identity than anything here, I’m afraid. And I know it’s “missing the point” to say it, but truly, Scorsese can do so much better than this.

Orphan Orphan 5 star

August 11th, 2009 by surlaroute

Tags: , , , , ,

If you look at my list of tags on the left of this site, where font size indicates the number of posts with that tag, you’ll see that two tags in particular have stood out like sore thumbs ever since I added the feature to the site, cuties which I use wherever a notable young actress (sometimes actor) is present, and horror, which is self-explanatory. Anyone who has read my reviews or plain known me long enough will know that when both these elements are present, I will assuredly be in line :)

I wasn’t sure what to expect from this movie at all. I’d seen no trailers, read few comments, knew no plot details other than what the poster told me, that “There’s something wrong with Esther …” The girl on that poster, Isabelle Fuhrman (last seen as actually one of the more memorable aspects of the otherwise disappointing Hounddog), frankly didn’t even catch my eye due to the strange symmetry they’d given to her face. So I went in knowing only that it was a horror movie with a little girl in it, which really wasn’t too bad a start.

Though it’s ultimately a little too long, more of which in a moment, this movie doesn’t waste its time in telling its audience up front that it’s not going to be a half-assed version of this type of story. The opening, a nightmare sequence, is truly one of the more unpleasant things I’ve seen in recent movies, and the half hour that follows, leading up to a grieving mother’s final decision to adopt an older child, drew me in completely. Within 15 minutes I had that feeling I long for in movies, that I was in good hands and that I really would willingly accept anything director Jaume Collet-Serra (he of the House of Wax remake, which – don’t hold it against me but – I also quite liked) wanted to throw at me.

There’s an awkward half hour or so following Esther’s entry into the readymade family waiting for her where I genuinely feared they had dropped the ball. Isabelle Fuhrman hooked me completely in her very first scene, having a stern and troubling face that melts away the moment she smiles, but even she here is hard to watch as scenes seemed to go nowhere, unfinished, setting things up but leaving so much unsaid as to be annoying.

Fortunately, this disjointedness doesn’t go on for too long. Soon enough, Esther shows her true colours. This is ultimately the movie that Omen IV could have, should have, been. It’s Debbie Jellinsky from Addams Family Values: The Early Years. It’s Foetal Attraction. It’s all those things and it goes all the places that make you go, “No … they’re not gonna go there, are they?” Yes.

Maybe this is where I say too much but the thing I loved most about the movie in the end was how, much like I did in The Children, I kinda couldn’t help but be on Esther’s side much of the time. The scenes at school, for instance; the punishment of a bully (to be honest, when they said that girl only broke her ankle I felt a little let down lol); the way she completely fools her foster mom’s psychiatrist (marvellously played by the marvellous Margo Martindale, btw) who is clearly full of psychobabble, and the ensuing misunderstanding as all the blame and mental issues fall to the completely wrong person, the mother. I love the inevitability of these stories of manipulation, horrible though it may be when it happens in real life. I can’t help but be kind of happy for Esther, too, when she uses her intellect to flatly prove her case. It’s just like the Revenge of the Sith / Matrix Revolutions thing all over again I guess … sometimes, evil just plain got a point LOL.

Anyway, the movie is surely not for everyone. Even I kind of wanted to leave after the wretching first 5-10 minutes and in particular Esther’s abuse of the youngest of her new family is rough to bear – like everywhere else in the movie, Collet-Sera pulls no punches here and the story goes wherever such a person as Esther would truly take it, and that’s to be admired in my book, especially in a movie as otherwise slick and “mainstream” as this is. It will shock those expecting the usual top ten horror movie especially in the UK with its 15 rating. For me it is easily the best movie (in an admittedly short list, I admit) I have seen all year, if only for its flat out rageousness. The acting, particularly by young Fuhrman who I’ll be looking out for in future, but also by Vera Farmiga and the ever-reliable (albeit always the same) Peter Sarsgaard, is perfect; and the moments when it is in full sway more than make up for any hokiness in the storytelling and its slight overlength. Really, any modern horror movie that has the impact this had on me after two weeks of watching the “Masters of Horror” series has gotta be doing something very right indeed, lol.

Soylent Green Soylent Green 3 star

January 15th, 2009 by surlaroute

Tags: , , , ,

This is one of those movies which every time I see it’s on TV I wonder to myself, why haven’t I seen that movie yet, and then skip it again anyway, only to then wonder, “why do I always skip it?” – and when I finally get around to watching it, I just kinda look at the TV and think, “oh yeh.” I of course knew the ending to this movie – don’t worry, I won’t spoil it – but I still find myself wondering if that’s really such a shame as it sounds like it oughta be. If I hadn’t been aware of how this movie ended, would I really have got any more out of it? Sadly I don’t think I would. This is a genuinely well-realised vision of the future: production design, visual effects and ideas come together to keep it marginally interesting for the duration, alongside some semblance of a detective story. But you get to the end and realise that’s kinda all these things are there for. At least, that’s how I felt.

All this said, it must be said, it took me until almost half way through the movie to even think to check the IMDb and see if the guy who looked like Charlton Heston really was Charlton Heston, lol (yes: some facts just skip me by, lol), and I was pretty surprised. Heston is not someone I like to watch in movies as much as a lot of other people – I have the same issue with Steve McQueen and used to have it with Warren Beatty, but Heston is like the king of the unwatchables, and yet he is perfectly watchable here. Other than this, what can I say except it just didn’t do it for me.

Vantage Point Vantage Point 4 star

April 2nd, 2008 by surlaroute

Tags: , , , , ,

At one point when I was just discovering how amazing cinema was, I was a huge fan of the classic Seventies political thrillers like The Parallax View this harks back to at times. I probably still am, though I haven’t even so much as watched All The President’s Men as recently as I’d like. Perhaps needless to say, at this time of year, with a no-name director at the helm, a title that doesn’t quite gel, and despite the cast, I really didn’t expect this to even touch those classics. Well, to be as brisk with my point as the movie itself is at 86 minutes … I was very pleasantly surprised.

To call this a thriller is an understatement. There’s one point – you’ll know it when you see it, I don’t wanna spoil anything but let’s just say “little girl, middle of the road” – where I literally almost started hyperventilating. As you may have heard, the movie covers the same succession of events – the shooting of a president followed by a series of explosions somewhere in Spain – from multiple points of view. On more than one occasion, these snippets reach an unbearable peak only to freeze and “wind back” to another perspective just before the end is revealed. It’s at times overwhelmingly effective, and to say it’s a movie with twists is the second understatement you could make of it.

For me, it’s the Forest Whitaker “segment” that will really stay with me and that I’ll come back for. It’s always interesting to see what actors do after they win an Oscar and while this does slightly follow the old, “now I’ll do a dumb blockbuster” thing that I think began with Nicolas Cage following Leaving Las Vegas with The Rock, I think more interesting here is how vastly different Whitaker’s character is here from Idi Armin. He plays almost literally a nobody who just happens to get caught up in the story and he does it so endearingly and believably I was on the verge of tears just watching him be so natural before the stuff with the little girl.

No, it’s not up there with the 70s classics – it’d need to be 30 minutes longer and put in a blender with either last year’s American Gangster or Zodiac for that. It is, however, the kind of pure ride I haven’t seen in a while. I remember the interviews with Jennifer Garner and Jamie Foxx over last year’s The Kingdom and while I got nothing from that production it almost seems like this is the movie they were selling. I really loved it.