Four Eyed Monsters
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Tour Spout | Sign up
Find movies you'll love

Dodd's Film Reviews

  • Psychological Chiller

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    1408  (2007)

    Perhaps this sounds like a familiar Stephen King premise; a writer stays at an old hotel for work-related purposes. The hotel is old and is said to house various angry spirits. Of course these ghosts exist because they died or were brutally murdered in this exact hotel. Anyone who stays in the hotel for too long begins to see evil things and loses their mind, which is exactly what happens to the previously-said writer. Sound familiar? Stephen King's The Shining is a novel that mirrors this exact premise, and it is quick to assume that the familiar story, which later became a classic film, is the storyline in question. However, it is not. In 2002, Stephen King revisited his "tormented writer in the haunted hotel" roots with the short story "1408", and the story recently received the film adaptation treatment. In a sea of thousands of Stephen King adaptations, there is a question as to how much this stacks up against the others. The answer is quite frighteningly.

    Mike Enslin (John Cusack) is a self-absorbed writer who specializes in ghostly phenomena. His obsession in life is to track down supposed haunted locations, and overthow the existence of paranormal activity. These accounts on haunted graveyards, hotels, etc., are compiled into cheap thrill books that end up on the bargain shelves at Barnes and Noble. A rural couple firmly believes their bed and breakfast is haunted by the spirits of angry spirits? Mike uses his state-of-the-art gadgets to shatter the belief that these ghosts do exist.

    A challenge suddenly appears before Mike in the form of a postcard. The anonymous message states that room 1408 in the Dolphin Hotel in New York City is a room housing unbelievable terrors. Mike sees this as an exciting opportunity, and packs his bags for the city.

    Upon arrival at the hotel, Mike is greeted by the stern manager played with brief brilliance by Samuel L. Jackson. Despite offers for expensive cognac and a free penthouse upgrade, Mike ignores all warning and insists on staying in the dreaded 1408. With self-assurance and arrogance, he checks into the room expecting the usual creaks, shadows, and lightning flashes that are read into by the usual local folk. But Mike is in for one wild ride. Small incidents evolve into catastrophic, traumatizing hauntings, and the superstitious writer discovers more than he bargained for.

    The state of horror cinema is a bit on the weak side these days. It seems it is either in the form of watered-down PG-13 ghost stories, or hard-R torture porn. In the middle of these releases, I continue to wonder if anything actually scary will hit screens. To my surprise, 1408 manages to succeed with chills and thrills. Yes, the film is rated PG-13, but it delves into a realm of psychological horror and creepy imagery so much, that the thought of blood and guts is left in the gutter. At times, it feels as if a certain edginess is absent as scenes of horrific insanity are dragged out. If anything, this occasional feeling of emptiness is one of the film's weaker points. But every time 1408 is hit with a lull moment, it brushes itself off and does not hold back on mystery.

    What really keeps this film standing is the direction and the performance from John Cusack. Director Mikael Hafstrom has supposedly tripped up on his previous outing Derailed (I would not know as I avoided it like the plague). However, the director proves his eye for detail in creating this King adaptation. Stephen King is a very descriptive writer who will devote two full pages in tiny font just to describe the interior of a hotel room. While I haven't read this particular short story, it seems that Hafstrom has stayed true to King's writing style. When Mike Enslin enters the hotel lobby and room 1408, we observe every little detail through his eyes. This is everything from an antique stroller sitting in the lobby, to the tacky wall paintings that grace the walls of the room. While a keen eye for such detail may bore some, I found this to be particularly effective. Before the scares begin, we become completely situated and familiar with the surroundings right alongside our protagonist. Because of this, we become susceptible to experiencing the terrors firsthand through the eyes of Mike Enslin.

    Another praiseworthy note is the performance by John Cusack. While other talented performers, such as Jackson, Mary McCormack, and Tony Shaloub, come and go, this is truly Cusack's show. As a man who spends the majority of the film battling insanity/ghosts in a hotel room, he really exhibits his acting range. While Cusack simply does his usual schtick at the beginning of the film with his smug grin and smart ass retorts, he completely subverts his usual persona to get scared. Cusack does indeed wipe the grin off his face and resorts to utter sadness and maniacal fear.

    My final thought on 1408 is that it is a psychological thinking person's film. It is questionable as to whether viewers prefer their suspense to be this ambiguous, or more straightforward. I, myself, giddily kept my mind busy one scene after another. However, good story or bad, the performance by Cusack is worth the admission alone. Cusack really makes the insanity and claustrophobia come alive. 1408 is the hotel horror film that Vacancy should have been. In a summer full of lackluster sequels, I can happily say that 1408 is one of the more original and satisfying movies I have seen this season.

  • A Trippy Masterpiece

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    The Fountain  (2006)

    It is truly saddening when high quality films are treated like excess garbage. Let's take The Fountain for example. After directing his druggie masterpiece, Requiem for a Dream, Darren Aronofsky set his sights on another enigmatic project that would embrace his dazzling vision. The Fountain was set to star Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett in a tale of two lovers set in three different time periods. After considerable budget was poured into the project, the megastars backed down, and the The Fountain's story of eternal life was left for dead. This was until it was resurrected once more with Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz filling the shoes of Pitt and Blanchett. Film aficionados and Aronofsky fans anxiously awaited the film's Thanksgiving week release, only to see it fail considerably with negative reviews and low box office numbers.

    It is easy for me to comprehend why The Fountain was not received by the movie-going public. Despite its stunning array of aesthetics, the film is packed with more questions than answers, which is rarely appreciated by audiences. However, what I fail to understand is why this film was slammed by so many critics. Various indie films have proven to be too "out there" for the mainstream, but generally seek refuge in the arms of understanding film critics. The Fountain is a film that seems to have hit theaters at the wrong time, perhaps confusing the critics who were reveling in the Thanksgiving blockbuster goodie baskets. Despite its bad reputation, I not only give The Fountain accolade for being a great film, but possibly the best film of 2006.

    Tom (Hugh Jackman) is a research scientist who is married to and madly in love with Izzi (Rachel Weisz). In the midst of their happiness, Izzi is inflicted with cancer. This leads Tom on an obsessive quest to discover the cure for disease and pain; he is on a mission to discover the serum for eternal life. Meanwhile, we frequently see Tom in the future where he is speaking to a tree and encapsulated inside of a globe-like atmosphere. Like Izzi, there is something about the tree that Tom holds sacred and sees as the key to eternal life. On top of "Present Tom" and "Future Tom" we also meet Jackman in the early 1500s as conquistador Tomas who is on a mission under Queen Isabel (Weisz) to find the Tree of Life.

    Yes, The Fountain is clearly a film that is difficult to summarize. It is certainly not easy to cram into a Hollywood pitch. Many critics claimed they did not enjoy the film because they simply didn't get it. What I do not understand is that these same critics that admire the mind-boggling smorgasbord of David Lynch suddenly give up on a film because they do not get it. Upon seeing The Fountain in the theater for the first time, there was not a sense of closure. How the characters in the three different time periods were connected was not entirely clear to me. However, the film exhibited a sense of mysticism that called for a second viewing the following week. During my second viewing, I saw The Fountain as an entirely different text. Rather than focusing solely on the central plot, I was able to make more connections, and appreciate the film for its aesthetics. In addition to a simple storyline, there is a tear-inducing score from composer Clint Mansell, unforgettable visual effects, and the skilled cinematography of Matthew Libatique. While still not entirely sure about the intricate workings of the plot, I identified The Fountain as a film that simply is what it is. We are not meant to follow a straight plot line, but instead use our imagination with the pieces laid before us by director Aronofsky.

    Of course, there remains the question as to whether or not Jackman and Weisz are worthy replacements for Pitt and Blanchett. While never getting to see the previous actors in this role, I whole-heartedly bought the performances by the talented performers. Hugh Jackman really exercises his versatility by playing three different characters obsessed with the mystery behind eternal life. The Fountain is essentially a morality tale that stresses the importance of enjoying our short lives, and this point would not be clear without Jackman's performance. As men who make too many mistakes in their impossible journeys, Jackman gives one of the best performances of the year. Following her Oscar-winning turn in The Constant Gardner, Weisz is also on target as his wise love interest going through the stages of death.

     I cannot stress enough my recommendation for The Fountain. This is not standard, popcorn-munching fare. It is pertinent to stress that this film is ambiguous and caters to those who don't mind exercising the noggin. I do suggest buying this film, because it is intended to be seen more than one time. The film and special features are outstanding and get my solid stamp of approval.


  • Torture Horror Follow-Up Is Just Plain Torture

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Hostel Part II  (2007)

    Looking back on older horror films, we may notice the phases that they went through. One example are the cautionary slasher films of the late 1970s and early 1980s that followed the Vietnam era. When looking at the past it is easy to draw parallels between films and their historical context. In looking at the present state of horror, however, it is not so simple. It is difficult to pinpoint the exact trend in horror cinema that will one day be written about by horror theorists ten years from now. But if I were to venture a guess, it would be the recent trend in torture horror. Forget suspense! Projects such as the Saw films and Hostel have taken terror to a different level by constructing elaborate methods of mercilessly killing people off. Obviously this subgenre has been a huge hit with the youth market, but the horror fan inside me sometimes questions this new bloody trend. How long can prolonged torture sequences really succeed with shock value? After seeing Eli Roth's Hostel II, I am hoping not for very much longer.

    This sequel opens exactly where the predecessor ended. The survivor from the first film, Paxton (Jay Hernandez) makes a pointless appearance in the first few minutes to tie up loose ends. This is done more ridiculously than the opening of a Friday the 13th sequel, except without the camp. After this intro, we are taken to Rome where three female college students are catching a train to Prague for a little R and R. There is Lorna (Heather Matarazzo), the sweet and dorky one. There is Whitney (Bijou Philips), the sexually-excited one. Then there is Beth (Lauren German), the straight-laced one. I'll bet you can't guess which one is the heroine.

    The three girls meet a mysterious woman on their train ride, who convinces the trio to switch trains and take in a Slovakian spa. Of course, this spa is located next to our favorite hostel. The girls check in, meet the friendly staff, and even attend a party. Little do they know that thousands of dollars have already been paid by rich men just waiting to torture and kill them. Of course this means there will be blood.

    At first, Hostel II is a film that has its ups and downs. The premise initially appears to be the same as the first, except with females venturing into the house of pain. However, it is then temporarily redeemed by the advent of new characters. We meet Stuart (Roger Bart) and Todd (Richard Burgi); two wealthy American men who have come to Slovakia to sadistically torture the protagonist beauties. With the original Hostel laying the groundwork for the big "secret", the sequel cleverly asks us to empathize with the torturers and the torturees. Unfortunately, just when the film is riding high with this attention-grabbing premise, it plummets hard without redemption.

    The film obviously treats its audience to scenes of torture. While watching these scenes, I sat with a sense of awe. Then I realized that Hostel II is one of the first horror films in a while to numb my sense of excitement. As an avid horror fan, I have taken pleasure in seeing people getting decapitated and ripped apart from limb to limb. These are horrific acts, and I enjoyed them guiltlessly. Yet, Hostel II did not amuse me. The torture scenes are quite serious without the campy reassurance to laugh. At the same time, they are not scary or suspenseful. They are simply sadistic and awkward. As a young girl is slashed in various places so her blood can gush down upon her attacker, the scene's stone cold seriousness is reminiscent of something out of a snuff film. Whether or not this is a good thing is really up to the viewer.

    I had the pleasure of seeing the original Hostel, and thought it was a decent effort. A lot of this had to do with being amongst a theater full of college students who joyfully cheered every time a person was tortured or killed. The surreal experience of seeing people obliviously revel in the bloodshed of a film commenting on people's sick obsession with violence was both fun and frightening at the same time. Without that experience, I am not sure if I would have even held Hostel in such high regard. However, with Hostel II, I fail to even see the point. While at first I saw the original film as a clever commentary from writer/director Eli Roth, the second is clearly all about bringing more torture horror to the masses for profit. When Hostel II is trying to be scary, it is not scary. When it is trying to be funny, it isn't funny. Instead it pats itself on the back and proclaims, "Look kids, more outrageous torture scenes!" This movie is definitely bloody, but it is far from bloody fantastic.

 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<June 2007>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
272829303112
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
1234567


Categories
 


Advertisement