Yet, when you sit through the film, its lilting pace seems disconcerting initially. But, surprisingly the film warms up as it literally keeps getting better and grows on you with a very interesting narrative pace for a horror film.
After discovering that his neighbour Jerry (Collin Farrell) is a vampire, teenager Charley (Anton Yelchin) has to find ways to protect his mom and girlfriend from his prying, killing presence. He tries to take help from a TV show host who claims to be an expert vampire killer.
First of all, unlike many horror films, "Fright Night" is in no hurry to scare you. It has a mood of its own, and builds upon its story with a gentle pace. It is actually surprising how the director literally throws away one chance after another to induce a nasty, terrorised chill up your spine, moments that other horror movies would lap up.
For instance, when Charley is finally sure that Jerry is a vampire and the vampire also knows that the kid knows, the confrontation could have been scarier, or when our teenager is in the vampire's house and he is allowed to simply walk away.
Yes, director Craig Gillespie, who debuted with the quirky little masterpiece "Lars and the Real Girl", is not looking for cheap thrills. That does not mean it is minus its horrors. If nothing, the special effects in which seemingly hundreds of sharp teeth that emerge from a vampire's mouth and dig into its victims neck, look scary.
"Fright Night" is refreshingly breezy, unserious and at times even silly. And this combination actually works for the film in a time of gore and excessive special effects.
The original 1985 film of the same name, of which this is a remake, had a simpler story and it had an interestingly balanced combination of humour and horror. This one takes the story, but builds different angles to it. It does lose out on the humour, but the gore and horror has definitely doubled.
Yet, it does not look needlessly self-conscious or pesky like the other recent remakes of '80s teen horror films like "Elm Street" and "Friday The 13th".
Collin Farrell is a kind of casting coup for a film like this. And in his own imitable way, he brings in flair to the film.
This is a must watch for the fans of the original and those who prefer a little refinement in their horror films.
sr:nr
Marissa (Jessica Alba) is cool enough to kick a master criminal's butt even when she is pregnant. She, however, does not reveal her identity of a spy to her husband and her pesky stepkids. But after the evil Timekeeper (Jeremy Piven) begins to steal time and neutralizes everyone who can stop him, it is left to the kids to save the day.
"Spy Kids 4" is a perfect film -- for toddlers. It is loud, in your face, predictable, full of action that does not add up and is populated by caricatured characters. That's perfect recipe for a kiddie film. And in that sense, it also ends up being cute.
However, if you bring in any other audience, the film starts getting really annoying.
The studio executives obviously had to resort to something unique to drag the people into the theatres. And that unique thing purportedly is a 4th dimension, which, as you'll discover, is nothing but the smell of bubble gum.
The ticket of the film comes with a big card that has numbers in it. Every time a number appears on the screen, one has to scratch the corresponding number in the card and some smell, corresponding to that scene, is supposed to be released. Sadly, all the eight numbers in the card have only one smell - bubble gum.
The 4th dimension of the film is thus nothing else but annoyance. Consider a dark theatre, heavy 3D glasses over your eyes and amidst these, of scratching a particular number in the card for you to be able to smell nothing but bubble gum every time.
Just like the film, the 4th dimension does not work. Which, in a way, is a blessing in disguise. After all, why would the audience want to smell fart? The producers' lack of attention competes only with Robert Rodriguez's lack of directorial attention.
The message of the film, however, is jolly -- spend time with things that matter, like family, before you're left with no time in the world. But a message that does not ride on a good film, usually falls flat.
sr:nr
Elizabeth (Cameron Diaz) is the kind of teacher who is bad enough to give the worst of teachers a bad name. She dopes, drinks, is foul-mouthed and sexually inappropriate -- all of this in her class. Her only ambition in life is to marry a rich guy. To do that, she thinks she needs work on her breasts, for which she needs 10,000 dollars. She does everything in her power as a school teacher, and beyond, to somehow manage that money. She also faces competition from another teacher out to expose her.
Cameron Diaz is too old to play a young, pesky teacher. However, it is her age and experience that gives her character an I-care-a-damn attitude which gives the film a little semblance of credulity and its few funny moments.
The story, as expected, is predictable. However, the gags and the jokes could have been original. Sadly, there isn't much luck on that front either. The humour is tasteless and the acting, in most parts, is bland. However, that may not be such a bad thing since the film has a sense of mockery about it. It is irreverent of everything, including itself.
But most of all it is perhaps impudent towards our times without really intending it. It is a film that would not have been considered by studios worthy of wasting precious money and an expensive star on. However, the fact that it exists and is getting a global release means that the producers know that come what may, they won't lose out. Sign of the times? Definitely.
And though there was an opportunity for its humour to be dark, sharp and witty, we instead have some overused and stale jokes that fail the film as well as the actors who do try to revive the movie, but to no effect.
Yet, it has a kind of mawkishness that will work for some kind of people, especially the bad-to-the-bone ones. It's a film made for them.
sr:nr
There are some films which are so inconsistent in every department that it becomes a masterpiece of an example to show aspiring filmmakers exactly what not to do. "The Man in the Maze" is a film which reaches excellence in that department.
Three friends camping in the woods are assaulted by a stranger wearing bandages on his face. The fourth friend escapes and manages to sneak up on the masked man and save his friends. They beat up and tie the man and try to find their way out of the woods but it seems someone is trailing them.
There are so many things wrong with the film that it will perhaps take a book to recount them all. But let's state a few.
The major problem is the story. It is inspired by the French time-travel film "Timecrimes" with elements of mysticism added to it.
However, while "Timecrimes" was a perfectly logical film that ties all loose ends and explains all doubts, this one does such a shoddy job, relying on disgracefully shot scenes of Red Indians (played by its Indian director Mitesh Kumar Patel) that you squirm in your seat with disgust.
Secondly, the writers have a misconception about them being good dialogue writers. The four characters thus go on and on for a majority of the film without either the horror or the suspense ever unfolding.
Finally when it does, the treatment is so bad, that it seems to have been not only done by someone who has never wielded a camera but someone who has the brains of a junior school kid.
The camera work is inconsistent, acting is nowhere to be seen, music is all over the place, the conceptualisation of scenes and flow is so bad that you have to literally tear your head.
For example, after almost being killed by a masked man, and in a jungle that is far from civilisation, the four friends go through the jungle as if they are taking a walk in the park. No one seems scared or in any hurry.
sr:nr
Its genius lies in its matter-of-fact approach without literally making a statement on anything, either humanity or the possible theories behind an epidemic as also in not using melodrama to raise empathy. In the world of twists and counters twists, the film treads a near straight line, yet manages to give one the shivers.
After a trip to Hongkong, Beth (Paltrow) falls sick and dies in a few days. Even before her husband can come to believe it, their son dies similarly. Before researchers identify the virus, hundreds of people all over the world begin to die.
As the global health bodies jostle to figure what's happening, an epidemic breaks out that threatens to destroy the political, social and economic structure of the world as mobs run riot and anarchy rules. How humanity survives it, forms the later part of the film.
"Contagion" is the story of one virus's journey through humans, its exponential multiplication and final elimination. Unlike many other virus disaster films like "28 Days Later" or "I Am Legend", it is not a horror film.
Yet, it is much more terrifying for this one seems chillingly possible, as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), bird flu and others have proven.
And it doesn't take a meteor like in the underrated masterpiece "Deep Impact" or "Armageddon"; not even aliens like in "Independence Day"; nor even global warming as in "2012" to threaten human life and bring the world to its knees. It takes one small, invisible virus.
"Contagion" is a spine-chilling tale because it literally and very simplistically shows how a conveniently connected world could actually become a problem in such a case. And how the well oiled governmental machinery globally could collapse under such an onslaught.
If one were to look at parallels or metaphors, they are aplenty.
Consider for example, the financial contagion of 2008-09. The virus of greed, which first showed symptoms in America, nearly took down the world, till two years later, the same time it takes to control the virus in the film, it was controlled and the world limped back to normalcy.
Face it, we live in a world where there may be physical borders but which is so well connected that viruses - be that on bodies or computers or financial systems - can spread rapidly through the world and systematically destroy everything.
Thus, without attempting to make a statement, "Contagion" decimates the stupid notions of nationality and borders and paints the world as one extended body, where problems in one part, even one human in this case, can affect and destroy the world as we know it.
And it is to the credit of a dream, ensemble star cast who not only do bit parts in a film they believed in, but also give their best.
One can only hope, pray, wish that the scary possibility of such a story stays confined within cinema halls and that we actually never see it.
sr:nr
There's good news in the air for cinema fans. The rom-com genre, a strong forte of Hollywood that was sadly dwindling thanks to some totally lacklustre films in the past few years, is back with a bang. The proof is "Crazy, Stupid Love", one of the best romantic comedies of our new millennium, and a laugh riot to boot.
Cal's (Steve Carell) world turns upside when his wife for over 25 years Emily (Julianne Moore) reveals that she has slept with a co-worker and wants a divorce. He moves out of his house and frequents a bar where a casanova Jacob (Ryan Gosling), taking pity on his self-pity, teaches him the moves to make women fall for him. To complicate matters are Cal's children, their baby sitter's crush on him and a mad English teacher.
It's been some time that a romantic comedy has either been romantic or comic. Many of them are witty or have slap-stick humour. But genuine, situational humour, funny observations about life and relationship and a true squeezing of a story's potential to make you laugh your guts out have been rare. That is the reason that this film shines amidst dull contemporaries.
In terms of poignancy, you can call it the "American Beauty" of rom-coms. While "American Beauty" manages to get the satire out of marriage and its fall out, this one gets the humour out of it.
And what's more, it's got a totally unexpected twist in the end like a thriller and a scene after that which will totally sweep you off your feet with its humour.
The shots are conceptualized beautifully and best of all the directors - Glenn Ficarra and John Requa - know the importance of silences and pauses even in a comedy that usually rely on a lot of dialogues. It ends up being as poignant as it is hilarious and totally natural in its execution.
Yet, at the core of it, this one is a film for the family. What it is to fall in love, to stay in it, to fall out of it and to fall back in again. It analyses the concept of love from various viewpoints, that of a young boy in love with a much older girl, a young girl lusting for a man more than double her age, of a long married husband and wife now bored with each other and a lustful smooth-talking man who always has his way with women.
It shows how our viewpoint of love is influenced by the loves of those around us.
And it is to the credit of a stellar cast that brings the eccentricities and love in their character out front. Steve Carrell and Juliana Moore are at their usual best, while Ryan Rosling will steal many pretty young things' hearts with his antics.
Yet, beyond it all, it is the smart screenplay of Dan Fogelman that, despite its flaws, manages to keep you focused on its strengths.
This one's bound to go down in history as one of the most original rom-coms of all time. And that is no small achievement.
sr:nr
