gswanson17 Reviews

Hostel: Part II (2007)

Erosion of a genre

[5/10 · 12 June 2007]

After a very successful box office turnaround with Hostel, no time was wasted in crafting a Hostel: Part Two. The trailers came out very far in advance, the film promised to be bloodier, scarier, and more intense, and the audience waited. Generally, I have to say I was disappointed—not because the film didn't live up to its promises—it did, but with this little niche in the market soon to become saturated, audiences are left feeling short changed. There are no genuine scares, and the film seems much like it is torture scenes pieced together by a flimsy plot. Eli Roth knows his gore, but proves his inability to successfully craft a scene of suspense.

The film is a reverse reworking of the first Hostel. The three male protagonists are replaced with female counterparts. As common horror movie knowledge goes, females are more well-liked than males, so that should scare us more as we will hopefully sympathize with the characters? This logic works to an extent, but ultimately alienates the audience from the intentions of Roth to bring us closer to the characters. We are disgusted by the first slaying, which only makes us feel bad. The subtleties make all the difference between the supporting characters. Josh (Derek Richardson) from the first Hostel had the right combination between nerd and nice guy to make him an extremely likable character. The audience would rather he and Paxton (Jay Hernandez) switch places. The character of Lorna played by Heather Matarazzo, who is already too recognizable to star in this kind of role, is too over the top, and difficult for the audience to take seriously. In Hostel: Part Two the heroine is exactly who you think it will be, and the audience is not left hung up on that dilemma.

The anonymity of the first Hostel added to the scare factor. We are not sure who these people are, what is going on, or how this business works. Unfortunately Hostel: Part Two flushes all these aspects out, and methodically desensitizes us to the procedures involved in this "business". It evens comes to be comical, for example, when businessmen around the world are bidding on victims to torture, it really takes the edge off that anonymous masked man scare. In the first Hostel, the brief awkward contact with Josh's soon to be torturer did not reveal too much about the businessman to make him less menacing later in the film. However, in Part Two, we don't really perceive Stewart (Roger Bart) to be that threatening or believe Todd (Richard Burgi) will carry out his plans, and with each minute more of screen time they receive they become more of a person, and less menacing.

The pacing and structure of the film lack in comparison to its predecessor. Paxton worries more about the whereabouts of his friends than does Beth (Lauren German). Little hints are also dropped like the jacket worn by an Oli look-alike, and the severed head text message. Part Two doesn't even give Beth time to digest the information before she too is swept up into the world of torture. There are no superfluous characters such as Kana (Jennifer Lim) from the original, and nothing to even sidestep from the very linear plot, and the 'us and them' feeling generate by Part Two.

I wasn't the world's biggest advocate of the first Hostel, but when sequels are made I either like them as a radical departure from the formula such as Aliens, or a film very adherent to the original such as The Bourne Supremacy. Hostel: Part Two seems to be undecided on what it wants to be. Like the Saw films, sequels will be easy to make and will profit well in the box office, but I'm sure the series will quickly erode without a strict adherence to formula. The deterioration in quality between these two films, the first not being so great to begin with, is proof that this series will probably run itself out of business and should perhaps quite while it's winning.

Fracture (2007)

Predictable, Boring

[5/10 · 13 May 2007]

I had high expectations for Fracture. The cast seemed great, I love murder mysteries as well as legal thrillers. Unfortunately these expectations were shattered. The film tenders great performances by Gosling and Hopkins, and the storyline is initially compelling, but when these are put aside there is no redeeming quality that saves the movie. Apart from Gosling and Hopkins, the acting is mediocre, at best. The plot is easily predictable, and feels like, if shortened, it could be an interesting episode on "The Practice". That said, it is an enjoyable film, but much better for rental on video, and not on the big screen.

28 Weeks Later (2007)

A Nice Complement To The Original

[7/10 · 13 May 2007]

Twenty Eight Days Later became the cult smash of 2003 because of its radical departure from what made up the quintessential "Zombie" film. Instead of using a wide 2.85 ratio with long shots, it resorted to a more intimate scope with quick and jerky movement. Instead of comedic clichés and over-the top violence, there was intense fear and realistic gore. The film succeeds on many levels in its theatricality and style, but on others such as plot, it fails to enthrall the audience and feel like a shell, for what we all truly want to see on the screen.

After Danny Boyle left the film to do Sunshine, Spanish director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo stepped in. Fresnadillo incorporated much more flair into the film than its predecessor. The camera transforms London into a labyrinth of modern buildings and steel with sweeping crane shots, pans, and fast cuts. It lulls the audience into a sense of peace and security with allusions to the chaos that is soon to follow.

Unlike most of the previous film, Twenty Eight Week Later benefits due to the clash between the modern and the devastation. In Days it is the desolation of the countryside that contributes to the edginess of the film; here it is the exact opposite. Also, in Days the destruction has already happened, and the audience is catapulted immediately into the action and chaos of the Rage Virus. In Weeks, we are obviously aware that these events will happen (we wouldn't have a movie if they didn't, right?) but it's the how, when, where, and why that captivate us.

The place where the film stumbles is the plot. Clearly Fresnadillo's intentions were not to hit it out of the ball-park in complexity or inventiveness, but there are holes—not necessarily plot holes, but weak spots in the script where one has to question the logic behind decisions made. Obviously it creates frustration within the audience which was most likely Fresnadillo's intention, but there is a line that needs to be drawn between intentional creation of frustration and poor script writing.

The political themes in the film are very broad and much more unnoticeable than mentioned elsewhere. There is that very present "Destroy everything to eliminate the few" theme that perhaps can be construed by some as American foreign policy but this implication is very broad, and I sincerely doubt the filmmakers of a zombie film had that on the brain. Needless to say, it is slightly visible and is food for thought.

The film also takes some cheap shots in the horror department. This is not to say that this is the only film that has succumbed to that temptation—most modern horror films build upon the notion that their audience likes some throw away scares. However, there are too many of these and it becomes tiring for the audience as well as detrimental to the pacing of the film. It has its gore as well, but nothing incredibly shocking or grotesque is seen (i.e. torture shockers like Saw and Hostel.) Not all is lost because of the film's plot or shock tactics. Throughout the film there are many creative scenes, (The scene in the subway is wonderfully done and the scene with the helicopter is absolutely shocking.) The blaring rock music juxtaposed with escape scenes (such as with Robert Carlyle in the beginning) assaults the audience's ears creating a great tension that the audience desperately seeks to relieve.

All in all, Twenty Eight Weeks Later is a worthy addition to its extremely successful predecessor. What makes it successful is the 'give and take' this film experiences in relation to the original. What one film does, the other seeks to balance by doing the opposite. They complement each other perfectly similar to the success shared by the 'Alien and Aliens' films twenty years ago. In this summer of sequels and more, this is one film that definitely holds its weight against the slough of other films that will undoubtedly not turn out to be as successful.

Vacancy (2007)

Linear Thriller, Avoids Pitfalls of Genre

[7/10 · 22 April 2007]

Amy (Kate Beckinsale) and David Fox (Luke Wilson) are returning from an arduous family reunion, on their way to Los Angeles. On their trip they encounter car problems and inevitably pull into a motel Norman Bates could feel right at home at. After some awkward exchanges with the owner, they reluctantly decide to spend the night. Upon viewing some tasteless horror films in the room, David begins to suspect their authenticity, and that these are actual murders taking place. Furthermore, he is led to believe the room that these events take place in is none other than the room they are currently residing. With this initial set-up, Vacancy wastes no time launching the audience into an engaging, gripping, and somewhat macabre story while borrowing sparingly from Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho and managing to side step many land mines other horror films fail to see.

Vacancy has both positives and negatives going for it, however the negatives don't seem to affect the narrative as frequently as in other films. The first thought that came to my mind was its running time. At eighty five minutes, the film may move at too brisk of a pace for some, and at times it feels like it should be part of a short horror film festival, rather than a stand alone feature film. The clichés are very apparent as well-the broken-down car, the mysterious stranger, the out-of-range cell-phone, and the creepy hotel are included, but rather than using them as a crutch for a poor script, the film seems to celebrate their existence. It epitomizes all horror films where the main characters are stranded, encounter mysterious people or creepy locations. The film also fails to successfully flush out the "snuff" film aspect that was so heavily advertised and anticipated. The screen time of these films is very limited and the focus on them is brief. They serve as an fundamental set-up, but after their initial appearance, they fall out of sight and out of mind.

What makes the film much more successful than the average "teen slasher" horror film is, ironically, the absence of teens in the film. In recent years the most successful horror films, in my opinion, like The Sixth Sense, What Lies Beneath, Stir of Echoes, and Hide and Seek all revolve around families, and in particular, the relationships between adults. In Vacancy, Amy and David are a married couple one argument away from a divorce and unlike an amorous, oblivious, teenage couple about to become mincemeat for an axe-murderer, the tension between David and Amy puts them on edge throughout the whole film and translates to tension in the audience while the film builds its suspense. The build of the film also differs from the main pattern set by modern "slasher" films. Winding like a key, the tension never lets down, and unlike the ups and downs of "slasher" films where there are multiple apexes of horror, there is a ratchet effect in Vacancy, where there is no relief and each scene is built upon the previous one. The other very obvious asset to the film is its relative lack of violence compared to most other modern horror films. In recent years, films such as the Saw series, Hostel, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and The Hills Have Eyes have lazily resorted to the shock factor to scare their audience rather than rely on the old saying "It's not the bang that is scary, but rather, the anticipation to the bang." That's not to say that the film isn't violent free, there is some definite violence involved, but in comparison to other films it seems, dare I say, minimal or practical.

The references to Hitchcock's Psycho are refreshingly flattering rather than annoying. In Disturbia, a recent loose remake of Hitchcock's Rear Window, the similarities become annoying and the film loses its intrigue. In Vacancy, the nods to Psycho are very slight. The Pinewood Motel itself is the most obvious example which, like the Bates Motel, is in serious need of redecorating. The beginning credits also throw back to Psycho with its vertical bars violently moving around to forceful string instruments. There are similar references to Halloween as well, but the one thing the film lacks is the characters' emotional dilemma and their feelings of guilt involved in their situation. In Psycho it is Marion's (Janet Leigh) moral dilemma over stealing the money, and in Halloween it is Laurie's (Jamie Lee Curtis) feelings of social inequity. Amy and David do not share this external baggage-their troubled relationship is seemingly repaired through this trial that they are put through and not manifested by a killer such as Michael Myers or Norman Bates. There is no name given to whoever pursues them and there is no correlation that can be drawn between the characters and their tormentors.

All in all Vacancy hits a few high points and is a smart enough film to stay clear of areas where previous horror movies have failed (horrible twist endings such as in Identity). Vacancy has a decent build of suspense, the exclusion of gratuitous violence helps, and the characters are more likable than those of the average horror movie. The letdown is that the film doesn't take any substantial risks. It follows a very linear path, with no deviations, and stays almost exclusively at the motel. It is a film that will entertain, but won't allow for too much out of the box thinking.

Summer Storm (2004)

A Storm of Emotions

[8/10 · 19 April 2007]

Summer Storm sets itself up to be, in a sense, a mindless teenage movie about sexual angst, frustration, and the desire to be 'understood'. Or at least, this is what I thought it would be seeing after viewing the trailer and hearing several reviews. However, this myth on my behalf was quickly shattered upon viewing the film. The film takes into account more than simply a throw away story, but assesses the characters feelings, and mirrors in the films pacing as what can truly be referred to as a storm.

The most compelling thing about the film is undoubtedly the story. In many teenage based movies (American, at least) the plot revolves around a relationship that seems improbable. Now, while either these movies let this relationship occur, or they don't, they are still acknowledging the possibility that this could happen (i.e. Jim with Nadia in American Pie),Summer Storm breaks this trend to show the sheer impossibility of Tobi's (Robert Stradlober) situation. Achim's (Kostja Ullman) heterosexuality doesn't diminish Tobi's chances of having a relationship with him, but they completely destroy them. Contrarily, there is absolutely no hope that Anke (Alicja Bachleda-Curus) will ever be able to have a relationship with Tobi due to his homosexuality. Unlike almost every other teen-film that comes to mind, this film doesn't focus on the characters' attempts to have this impossible relationship, but rather, focuses on their realizations that this relationship will never occur. This heavy plot gives the theme and overall tone of the film a relatively depressing one. To alleviate much of this despondency, the director (Marco Kreuzpaintner) utilizes both filming techniques, as well as side plots to create a unique blend of highs and lows that represent very well, the tumultuous twists and turns of a storm.

To combat the often depressing nature of the film there are many scenes of comedic relief spread throughout the film. In fact, Tobi, at the beginning, shows an exorbitant amount of exuberance and humor. This fades, however as the movie progresses into a much darker realm. The appearance of the "Queerstrokes" also adds a lot of humor to the otherwise seriousness of Tobi's rowing crew.

The film also parallels the motions of a storm in the actions and feelings of the characters. Tobi and Achim start out as well adjusted best friends who do everything together, and are looking forward to an exciting time at rowing camp. The apex lies in the middle of the film in the forest and is definitely noticeable as the climax of the film. Immediately following is, in a sense, the eye of the storm. The denuma is extraordinarily long, but serves as aftermath to the storm or conflict that preceded it. The film ends on a happy note with a sense of possibility, and in my opinion parallels that of the film Get Real (1998).

Summer Storm is unique because it doesn't focus on the "Coming Out" aspect that many gay teen films focus on. It acknowledges that the character is already out on his own terms, and the friction lies over his feelings about his best friend. This tension and how it plays out over the film, combined with aspects of comedic relief and pacing of the film let the audience become immersed in the story and think in terms of the characters and their struggles.

Run Lola Run (1998)

Film Stock In Lola Rennt

[8/10 · 19 April 2007]

Run Lola Run starts out with a flurry of activity, and within a matter of minutes we are brought up to speed on Lola's (Franka Potente) predicament. She must find a lot of money, and deliver it to her boyfriend—all within twenty minutes. Tom Tykwer has wound this film incredibly tight with his fast paced editing, dazzling special effects, and innovative use of film stock, thereby enhancing the narrative. This is evident in the way Tykwer approaches the look of the actual film on which the movie is shot. The color and quality of the film separate Lola and Manni apart from the other characters as well as scenes from the film.

After the initial prologue which introduces the viewer to "the game", we are thrust into the dynamic world in which Lola lives and the problem which she faces. Manni, her boyfriend had a responsibility to deliver some money, which he lost on the subway. This entire flashback sequence, reported to Lola by Manni (Moritz Bleibtreu) via payphone, is brought to life with black and white flashback scenes that seem to have an extra edginess to them. These scenes play almost like a video, seeming to run at slightly faster than normal pace. It's as if Manni has played these scenes over and over again in his head, like the permanence of a bad accident or horrible event. The black and white symbolizes in viewer's mind the unchangeability of this event, which contrasts to the rest of the film that seems to have changeable outcomes. The rest of the movie launches from this "base" which serves as a solid checkpoint for the characters as well as the audience.

Contrasting with the black and white is the recurrence of red throughout the film. There are two main scenes in which the characters are submersed in a red glow as they interrogate the other with deep philosophical questions. The red provides a contrast and a way of transitioning between "attempts". Like the black and white of the beginning, the red signals to the audience that this scene isn't part of the "game", but more of an intermission or pause. Special attention is paid to these two scenes because of their complete contrast to the rest of the film. They are slower, with more dialogs, and more thoughts to ponder.

The final aspect of the film that separates Lola and Manni from the rest of the world is the quality and format in which the film was shot. Becoming especially apparent in the scene with Lola's father, Tykwer uses this technique extremely well to contrast between the world that Lola sees, and the world that she doesn't. Instead of wide or large shots, the scene between Lola's father and his mistress is an incredibly intimate one, and therefore shot on digital film using extreme zooms, setting it apart from the previous wide, sweeping shots of Lola as she's running. Because of this zoom on the digital camera, a slight graininess becomes evident which gives the audience a sense of displacement, as if perhaps, they shouldn't be watching this scene because it doesn't contain Lola or Manni. This is also noticeable in the scene containing the biker and bum. Again, the same technique was used to shoot this scene, and creates an uninvited effect for the audience.

At first glance a viewer could deduce that Run Lola Run has very little in the way of narrative or character development and focuses much more on the use of special effects and film techniques. However, because of the careful consideration put into how the special effects are used, Tykwer has been able to create a connection between the two and has been able to impact how the audiences distinguishes Lola and Manni from the other characters in the film.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

Harry's Even More Magical World

[8/10 · 19 April 2007]

Alfonso Cuarón is probably one of the most eclectic directors in all of Hollywood. I first became interested in him after viewing the film Y Tu Mamá También, and began to devour his other works including Great Expectations and A Little Princess. Every film of his is a gem, and completely different from the previous, but the one film that really stood out in my mind as a showcase of his work was, incredibly enough, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Now, I am by no means a very big Harry Potter fan. Yes, I've read the books, and yes I've seen the movies, but they were never really a very big deal for me, like they were for some of my peers. What drew my attention to the film was the attachment of Alfonso Cuarón to the job of directing.

After two financially successful Harry Potter films, Chris Columbus called it quits, and in 2003, the job was up for grabs. Columbus, after a string a very successful family films including Home Alone, Mrs. Doubtfire, and Stepmom, had developed a very predictable way of directing, which, for me, made the first two Harry Potter films incredibly dull. When I became aware that Cuarón was taking the job, I grew very excited for the release of the film. In his other works, Cuarón had found a way of completely opening up the film to let the audience be entirely immersed in a world they are not part of. He gives the audience room to imagine what is beyond the scope of the camera and the walls of Hogwarts. I love everything about this technique because it gives such a sense of possibility and limitlessness.

While many cynics, especially kids who have read the book, as it's likely the only book they've read which has been made into a movie, object to the removal of subplots in the film, they are missing the overall aesthetic and feel of the film. The third movie feels more like a Harry Potter book. While only focusing on the linear events of Harry Potter, Columbus missed out on the broad world of Harry Potter, which is exactly what Cuarón provided. Cuarón spent a great deal of time showcasing the lusciousness of the castle, the beauty of the grounds, and the overall quirkiness of everyday objects in this world. He paid extra special attention to the colors that were placed in the film, green for jealousy, and red for warning. Cuarón managed to set up incredibly complicated camera shots that weave in and out of rooms, over turrets, and across lakes. These small touches are what emphasize the magic of Harry's world, and not the actual events that happen in the narrative. Everybody knows they can do magic and everybody knows the invisibility cloak works. It's how the director engages the audience by the use of camera movement that the audience feels that they too, can be a part of this.

Cuarón also binds magical elements to the elements of the real world. Like in A Little Princess, the audience is not quite sure how all of those food and luxury items appeared in Sara's room, but they like it just the same. In Great Expectations it's quite unrealistic to believe that Fin gets this remarkable chance to display his art and become famous, but it is bound with very realistic elements such as poverty, and heart brokenness, that makes the audience come to believe that this could really happen. Cuarón uses the same techniques in The Prisoner of Azkaban. Throughout most of the film, the main characters are never seen with their robes on, yet appear performing magic all the time. Having these two elements juxtaposed together engages the audience even more, because these are kids who wear the same clothes, talk about the same things, and have the same problems that everyone does. The audience can relate to the characters, and feel like they area part of the story, rather than idly watching. Cuarón emulates what J.K. Rowling's books were trying to invoke in readers—a sense of belonging.

A well directed film will not necessarily leave the viewer continuing to think about the plot of the film, or even its social implications, but a well directed film will make you think in terms of the world it was set in. After The Prisoner of Azkaban, the audience wants to know what else is going in this world. They want to know what lies deep in the forbidden forest; they want to know the ins and outs of the castle; and because of the omnipotence of the camera, the audience believes that they are entitled and have the ability to know more. This was not a film told in a linear way, but in an incredibly 3-dimensional world, where anything is possible, and it is they way that Cuarón illustrates this with his techniques that makes this film amazing.

In the Mood for Love (2000)

In The Mood For Desert?

[7/10 · 19 April 2007]

Set in front of the conservative backdrop of 1960's Hong Kong, Wong Kar Wai's In the Mood for Love tells the intimate tale of two people who, by fate, seem to land themselves in each other's company due to the common bond of the absence of their spouses. The plot of the film, by no means anything original by the year 2000, is however, deeply accentuated by the style in which the film is shot. With unconventional camera angles, an inconsistent musical score, and deep, luscious colors, In the Mood for Love brings a seemingly real perspective to a very personal story.

Mr. Chow (Tony Leung) and Mrs. Chang (Maggie Cheung) coincidentally, move in to their small neighboring Hong Kong flats on the same day. Mr. Chow, a newspaper editor with an unseen, but presumably traveling, wife, and Mrs. Chang, a secretary, also with an unseen business executive husband. The two often find their paths crossing as they frequent the same streets, restaurants, and noodle shop. It is when they discover that their spouses are having an affair that they begin to see each other. Unlike very fast paced, show-all, American films, the relationship that blossoms between Mr. Chow and Mrs. Chang is not one of immense passion and love, but more of a deeper unsaid understanding. It is the simple gestures such as the conversations, the gazing into one another's eyes, and the holding of hands where the real relationship lies. This could not be clearer when, in a climactic moment of the film, they briefly caress each other's hands in the back of a taxi.

The film is accentuated by the unconventional, but highly innovative camera work throughout. Often times the camera remains stationary while the characters move about, and sometimes out of the frame! It's as if to remind the audience that we are looking through a peeping hole rather than through a true television, and that there are things that we will not be able to see. Throughout various portions of the film, like the rice cooker scene, for example, you can hear the characters speaking, but you will actually have to visualize what they are doing. The position at which the camera lies throughout the movie is also noteworthy because of the strange angles it is put at, such as under a bed, over a person's shoulder, through metal grating, and in general, low to the ground. It seems that Wong Kar Wai is telling us "no, that's too easy. You need to look at this from a more difficult position, as if you were eavesdropping on these very private moments…"

The rich colors and costumes of the film play a very large part in how the story is told as well. In the first scene, at the appearance of Mrs. Chan and her very colorful dress, the audience is immediately drawn to her and continues to watch her throughout the rest of the film. From then on each dress, one right after the other, begins to astonish the viewer with its lush colors and interesting patterns. This immediately sets Mrs. Chan apart from any other character, especially Mr. Chow, who dresses in relatively the same attire every day, creating a very physical contrast between two characters who are emotionally similar. Not only does the costuming add emphasis to the film, but the lighting of most of the scenes adds another layer onto they already thick stylized coat of the film. Much of the film takes place on the very foreign and almost enigmatic streets of Hong Kong, usually during the night, and we are provided with not quite enough illumination to see everything perfectly. This adds a heightened level of mystery throughout the entire film, especially in the first half, before the characters really meet. The warm colors, in a sense, add quite a bit to the slow pacing of the film. These are not very cold, vivid, or fast colors, but rather ones that let the scenes take their time, in a place where conversations are not hurried and friendly games with neighbors last into the late hours of the night. The editing also does its part to slow down the movie, making the shifts between days seamless and slowing scenes down into slow motion to literally "juice" the magic out of them.

However, much, if not all of the aforementioned material is simply technique none of the true bread and butter of movies is covered. This is simply because there hardly was any. Is the plot original? No, not really. Is the script solid? Well, considering there was no actual script to begin with, no. But is the way in which all of these, otherwise boring, elements filmed beautiful and interesting? Absolutely! It seems that the true core of this movie is missing, but who's to say that every movie has to follow a standard formula? This film epitomizes the golden rule in the entertainment industry which is presentation, presentation, presentation, and while this may not be the chocolate cake of film, it certainly is the crème brulée of film, presented magnificently, with a spectacular outer crust covering a much unadorned interior.

Disturbia (2007)

Sets itself apart, but no lasting appeal.

[5/10 · 19 April 2007]

The analogy that I have decided appropriate for a film such as this to a classic such as Rear Window (1954) would be the comparison of a fast food meal to that of an elongated meal in a comfortable restaurant. While the same purpose essentially remains, the difference lies in the subtle nuances, attention to detail, and the lingering feeling of the plot. Disturbia plays out like a candy bar—initially sweet and satisfying, but inevitably does not have a lasting impact.

I'll start with the positives first. Disturbia has a lot going for it for several reasons. One, it has separated itself far enough from Rear Window, to keep it fresh and inventive enough while still being held under the wide scope of Hitchcock's original film. Second, its incorporation of technology as a primary tool used by the characters is important because it ties the film in with the generation it has been targeted to. The use of computers, cell phone cameras, and various musical devices all create an excitement in the viewer which propels the story on a very linear path. Another interesting, but much more subtle modern twist to the story is the persistence of Hale (Shia LaBeouf) to having a relationship with Ashley (Sarah Roemer). In Rear Window and in the 1950's in general, there was a much more obvious push for a woman to find a man to pursue. As a teen film and as far as society goes, this trend has pretty much reversed, and it was very interesting to see the noticeable foundations of LB Jeffries (Jimmy Stewart) and Lisa (Grace Kelly) shine through.

The negatives, unfortunately far outweigh the positives. First, the film settles for cheap explanations and diversions to continue the story without interruption. For example, Hale (Shia LaBeouf) never has a second encounter with the judge even though he violates his terms purposely. The filmmakers have sacrificed reality to drive the narrative, which constrains the viewer to the inconsistencies rather than the impending terror. Second, and in my opinion, the most important factor is the absence of the inner workings of the other neighbors. What was most enjoyed in Rear Window was the seeming irrelevance of the lives of the neighbors. While Disturbia makes it quite clear when and where the conflict will arise, it doesn't let the audience lower their guard or become distracted with others' petty problems as such in Rear Window. The third lies on the character of Mr. Turner (David Morse), who becomes too involved with Hale and his mother (Carrie-Ann Moss) too early in the film. He quickly loses his edge because the audience now has put a personality to a face. In Rear Window, when Mr. Thorwold slowly moves his head to peer into the room of LB Jeffries for the first time, at nearly the end of the film, there is an immediate terror that runs up the audience's spine. They have not met this character and they have no idea of his intentions or what he has done. To the audience, he is an enigma.

It's easy to see that Disturbia has problems that far outweigh its positives; however this is not to say that it's not a fun movie. This is a film that brings back the complete essence of going out to the theater. The popcorn, the screaming pre-teens, and of course the lightning-paced plot all contribute and throw back to the feeling of a night out. While not nearly up to par with Hitchcock's classic, Disturbia definitely sets itself far enough apart from the film to tread in new territory and appeal to a completely different audience.

Turistas (2006)

Inventive for its type

[5/10 · 31 January 2007]

Most people disregard 'Turistas' as a mindless, unimaginative, horror film. I am here to interject. After seeing too many horror films to count, I have come to expect a pretty standard formula embedded in each. And while the majority of films do follow it, there are the occasional ones that don't--'The Descent', for example.

'Turistas', from the trailer seems that it will be along the lines of the countless other teen slasher movies being produced, 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre', 'House of Wax', etc... We are led to believe this because of the ambiguity of the trailer. Upon viewing the film, however, we learn the actual intent of the villain is not maliciously driven, but rather economically. This seems to take much of the 'scare' out of things. The villain, while we obviously don't sympathize with, come off as capable, calm, and calculating, and not some lunatic madman. Everything is revealed to the audience early on, and nothing is left to the imagination.

(Spoilers)

The film does seek out creative and innovative ways to 'off' people, but does not rely heavily on gore to do so, but rather, in anti-climatic ways. I first observed this with the Swede girl running from the enemies. She meets her demise in the ironic way of not actually coming into contact with her captors, but rather by running herself off a cliff. The same can be said for the sister. She is carefully dissected by the doctor, and while this is scary, it is not going for the explosive shock factor like other films. The buildup is relatively slow, and relatively few of the main characters end up dying.

(End Spoilers)

Now, while this movie obviously merits no substantial attention, it is unique because it refuses to follow most standard set ups for horror films. Perhaps I have seen too many to give an accurate review, but everything in this film has to be looked at relative to other films of the same nature. It is here, that 'Turistas' stands out among the others, and while it certainly isn't a great film alone, it is a unique film in its category, and certainly doesn't deserve a 2.4 rating on IMDb.