Friday, December 16, 2011

REVIEW: The Others (2001)

There are SPOILERS in this review!

Horror movies are hard to do right; I will admit this as freely as anyone, and I am a huge fan of the genre. What it comes down to is that horror is a genre that works on a very different level than most other genres, and emphasizes very different aspects of filmmaking – like how you can make an effective horror movie with barely any money. Horror doesn’t need money; it needs atmosphere, creativity and heart to do right! But sometimes there does come along a rare big budget Hollywood horror movie that simply smokes everything out there…such is the case with The Others, which is a veritable masterwork of horror craft and style.

Director: Alejandro Amenábar
Starring: Nicole Kidman, Finnuola Finnegan, Alakina Mann, James Bentley

This movie is just awesome. It’s completely accessible and friendly to viewers of more mainstream films, and yet it doesn’t pull any punches and is always elegant, well-written and classy. That’s not to say that the scares aren’t there – they are. The scares are perhaps some of the best I have seen in any post-2000 horror film, as The Others uses a very subtle, understated style that leaves most of the horror to your imagination. And the subtle build of tension eventually leads to a much better payoff when the big, supernatural scares start rolling toward the end.

It’s kind of like Hemingway’s iceberg theory – you only see the tip of the iceberg, where the rest is hidden below the surface. One scene very early on that floored me is when the two kids, Anne and Nicholas (Alakina Mann and James Bentley), are sleeping in their room, and he hears her talking to a “ghost,” who talks back in a different voice, but you don’t really see anything but the back of her head from his perspective. So is she talking to a ghost, or is she really just doing voices, like he initially thinks? And when the “ghost” touches him…? That is brilliant, brilliant scare tactics right there, and it was at about that point that I realized I was dealing with something more than a garden variety horror film. The build-up to the movie, full of scenes where Nicole Kidman’s character hears things going bump in her big, spacious house, is rife with these kinds of techniques, these manipulations of the viewer, and it really shows a great mind at work here with the directing. Director Alejandro Amenábar hasn’t directed many other films, which is a shame.

Nicole Kidman in The Others, traversing amidst her dark abode...

The characters are all really good, too, even when you think they’re going to be really stock clichés. Nicole Kidman is Grace, a domineering but caring mother of two children who are photosensitive, and can’t be exposed to the sun for too long. They live in a big old country mansion in the 40s after World War II, and the story begins just as they hire Bertha Mills (Fionnula Finnegan) and her traveling companions as help around the house.

Kidman really does a great job at capturing Grace’s tight, strict demeanor and devotion to the Lord, which pretty much frame her entire character. She is quite vividly colored and I actually found myself totally drawn into the performance, believing every inch of it. The kids, same thing, they are excellent. Bertha Mills is one of the better characters, and Fionnula Finnegan really makes you question her motives at every turn – you know there’s something up with her, but what is it? Or are you just being paranoid? Her companions are a young mute girl and an elderly man, neither of whom have many lines, but both end up as sufficiently creepy and suspicious anyway.

Having the kids be photosensitive is an interesting twist and really made for some cool, inventive visual touchstones – like how Grace has to close all the windows and doors to make sure the sun doesn’t creep in accidentally. One scene in the beginning shows this quite well – after telling Anne to leave the room to study by herself, Grace has to first tell Bertha to close the windows in the adjoining room to keep her daughter safe. This plot point wasn’t entirely necessary to move the story forward, but the fact that it is there adds another layer of complexity and weight to the plot, upping the ante on the danger present in a very peculiar and unique way. The fog constantly surrounding the house is great, too, always looking ominous and ghostly, setting the stage with a real atmosphere.

The film closes with two plot twists, one right after the other. First we find out that Bertha and her companions have been dead the whole time, accompanied by some beautiful, haunting shots of the country house at night in the fog. The shot of the three of them walking slowly toward the kids is bone-chilling.

Haunting!

The final twist is perhaps not completely unexpected, but it is pulled off with gusto and drama – that the entire family, Grace and the kids and all, have been dead since the beginning of the film. Shock and awe! In reality, the ‘ghosts’ they’ve been hearing the whole time have been living people trying to move into the house. It is a rather humorous and witty take on the genre, as everything the main characters have been doing throughout the film would have been the ‘ghostly’ activity inflicted upon the characters in any other movie. Those curtains opening randomly? The rustling and bumping in the night? Quite eerie to think about, really…and quite a great deconstruction of the ghost story. The Sixth Sense has nothing on this.

Really this is a movie about death and our perceptions of our own lives. Nobody can really talk about ghosts with any kind of certainty, but The Others does a fine job of commenting on the ways we view ourselves and how little it sometimes means when the outside world sees us so much differently. The realization of death is bitter and painful, but inevitable too. There’s something to be said for Grace’s final speech, which amounts to her own character weaknesses and strengths all at once – very good writing. She has to face the reality that God did not give her a second chance to be a good mother, and that she’s been lingering on Earth as a ghost, and really, what does it all mean?

It is not a happy tale, and the implications are all quite macabre as to what actually transpired, as opposed to the movie’s unreliable narration, but the film is powerful and haunting all the same. I also like that it’s so accessible and cleaned up. Rather than coming off as cheap and phoned in just to make a quick buck, it feels like time and effort went into making it – a calculated, precise work that shows its effort off like a badge. This is a very mainstream take on the horror genre, and for once it actually works like a gem, as The Others is just magnificent. Scary, artful, meaningful and gripping, this is a bonafide classic of the genre.

Pictures copyright of their respective owners.

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

REVIEW: Suspect Zero (2004)

Suspect Zero is a fraudulent and meaningless film that attempts to be artful but comes off as entirely idiotic and pointless. It is an insanely pretentious, confusing mess of a film, and I really can’t see any redeeming factors in it. The characters are stock, the writing is boring, the directing is complete try-hard nonsense…everything about it sucks! Do I even have to review it? Might as well save myself the time and energy now. This isn’t even worth talking about. So there, I’m done with this one – NEXT!

Wait, what do you mean my family is being held hostage by hungry Brazilian terrorists and will be killed if I don’t actually review this film? Well, damn. FOR MY FAMILY I will persevere!

Director: E. Elias Merhige
Starring: Ben Kingsley, Aaron Eckhart, Carrie-Ann Moss

Director E. Elias Merhige apparently believes that cinema is the only meaningful form of art anymore. The fact that he says that while putting out dreck like this is just hilarious, as this is art-less, confused slop like none I've ever seen. It's tough to bash a movie made by well-meaning, honest and nice people, but when I get one like this, pretentiously made by a pretentious twat of the highest order? It's like Christmas come early. Let's get started with this systematic beating.

The film begins with some fat bald guy getting jump scare’d by a happy couple running around outside. Good news, though, you can’t possibly be more of a pussy than this guy. He then gets jump scare’d DOUBLE by Academy Award winning actor Ben Kingsley, whose participation in this film is completely a mystery to me. Maybe they promised him some pot brownies or something. He certainly acts like he’s on drugs during this whole thing. I’ve seen more sober performances from Bill and Ted.

He looks like he's seeing right through your SOUL.

So yeah, he gets in the back seat of the guy’s car magically, I guess, and kills him by fading into the next scene!

Dammit Ben Kingsley, stop popping up in the back of my car seat! I know you played Gandhi, but that excuse just isn't gonna hold up forever you know! You gotta get your life in order.

Then we get to meet superstar FBI agent Aaron Eckhart, who is so cool that his scenes sometimes get to be shot with SUPER HIGH TECH red filters!

...because there's something wrong with just shooting this like a regular shot? Even if it's some kind of weird psychic vision, it just breaks up the film when it's done so randomly like this.

He goes to the crime scene of the guy who was killed in the opening and sees that his eyelids were cut off, which has the unique effect of making his eyes look really strange.

Now you know he'll have to look you in the eye when he's talking to you...

Eckhart gets put on the case with his old flame Trinity from the Matrix series - yes, really - who in this movie is a local cop who needs to work with the FBI for...unstated reasons. I guess they couldn't have just had her working with him from the beginning? It's not like their relationship plays a huge role or anything. But that doesn't stop them from talking about it in the most obnoxiously cliched ways ever! It goes kinda like this:

ECKHART: You just stay out of my way, because I'm over you and in charge of this case! I'm going to act stoic and silent not because that's my personality, but because I'm a poorly written and half-baked protagonist!

TRINITY: Oh you never change, always ignoring me and trying to be in control, just like when we were in a relationship! Even though this is work and I should be able to put that behind me, I'm bringing it up anyway just because that's what one-time lovers who have to work together do in these movies! Blah blah blah...

So they go to this halfway house where Ben Kingsley supposedly stayed, and find out that he lived in a basement full of cliché serial killer stuff like newspaper clippings, writings on the wall and crazy looking drawings right out of Se7en. Because otherwise he just wouldn’t be edgy enough! And the movie understands that there are no other ways to convey insanity and depravity besides showing these stock, over-used tropes that have been done in literally every other serial killer movie ever made. Uh huh. Not like you could have had, I don't know, actual character depth and good writing instead, right? No? Okay then.

What, writings on the wall? Only crazy people do that!
And only crazy people collect newspaper clippings! I deduce from my extremely limited, biased POV that this guy must be nuts.

After that we see a girl getting kidnapped and raped; don’t you just love how tasteful this movie is? Luckily the guy gets killed by Kingsley, though. Kingsley also leaves a special message for Eckhart, because apparently the rapist guy was the one who got Eckhart suspended from the force back in the day…I don’t know, the connection between Eckhart and Kingsley throughout the whole film is tenuous at best. The character relationships in this film all feel SO half-assed and underdeveloped. It expects you to follow along with Eckhart and his ex, and also with Kingsley and Eckhart's 'psychic bond' thing, but none of it is ever really explained or given any significance. It's just put on the backburner for the psychological cop thriller story, except THAT sucks too! So really, what are you left with but a big old dusty corpse of a film with nothing to offer at all?

So then they go to see this doctor who used to know Kingsley. Apparently Kingsley was part of some experiment by the government to give him the power to read the minds of serial killers. The good ol doc says that Kingsley believes in a super serial killer called Suspect Zero who kills people all over the United States and has never been caught. Geez, must really rack up the car bills, huh? How do you think he pays those, anyway? Does he double as some kind of traveling salesman or something? Granted, the idea is cool, but it’s just not explained that well, and the way it’s presented is pretty goofy at best. I mean we’re really supposed to buy this? A few killings in a couple of states, sure, but look at this map Kingsley has:


THAT MANY killings all over the country??? Maybe if they had just limited it to one or two Suspect Zero killings in MOST of the states I wouldn’t complain, but the fact that there are so many is just insane!

And also, this government experiment lets him see what serial killers are doing? How does that even work? Are serial killers some kind of special breed of human being now? How did they make it so he didn’t just pick up what some random Joe was doing on the street? Score one for extremely specific government psychic powers, I guess.

After that we see Eckhart brooding and sitting alone while researching more stuff about the case, because it’s all you need to know about his character. And then you get Ben Kingsley crying silent cinematic tears while having spastic daydreams of random killings – yup, these two things sum up the next half hour or so of the film. Snooooooooooze. Here is another one of the movie’s main problems actually; THE DIRECTING IS CRAP. Seriously, it’s hard to enjoy this movie when every other scene has these random effects filters over it:

Well, okay, this one is a flashback...but there's another flashback in this movie and it's NOT shot in random sepia-toned filters, so what the hell?

It’s like the director is projecting his mental vomit onto the screen. We really don’t need to see all this schizophrenic kid-hyped-on-sugar-style directing to get the point of the story. It’s not even that complex of a story really. Why all the pointless masturbation of effects? It's like the director's only real concept for how to put this movie together was the 'PowerPoint slide show style,' with random images flashing on screen, interrupting the story, trying to show us their significance but ultimately failing, because there is no significance. Alright, look, I'm gonna have to go into rant mode here: 

Just throw all of these scenes, with their terrible directing choices and poor attempts at symbolism, into what I like to call the Artistic Garbage Bin – the place where movies like this are destined to go. It is a place for films which pile on the arty, faux-pretentious camera shots and symbolism and everything else, and yet say nothing of worth. What is Suspect Zero saying? That it would really suck if you had to see people doing horrible things to each other in your dreams all the time? Yeah, I don’t know. I think you’re going to need a better purpose than that, movie. To the Artistic Garbage Bin with you!

But the movie plods on with more nonsense as Eckhart discovers Kingsley’s secret, that he’s been killing people who killed other people. Kingsley finally seeks him out and kidnaps him, tying him up and gagging him BECAUSE…I really don’t know. Kingsley’s acting gets really over the top, too, as he SHOUTS random WORDS in HIS sentences with no real rhyme or REASON to it! And why couldn’t he just TALK to Eckhart; what’s up with the bondage? He even puts him in handcuffs when they go out together. I think the director was just living out some kind of weird Aaron Eckhart in handcuffs fantasy…eugh.

They eventually find out that Suspect Zero lives on some ranch and takes kids there to kill them from all over the country – seems highly impractical and prone for errors, but hey, I’m not the one with enough time to kill that many people. I guess I shouldn’t be talking. Eckhart kills the guy, and then Kingsley gets Trinity to kill him by pretending to attack Eckhart, as he just can’t take the pain anymore. What an underwhelming ending. I’ve had more emotional attachment to used chopsticks. I’ve seen documentaries about dung beetles with more drama. What a load of baboon hair shavings!

This movie is a mess! It’s just so confusing and so boring that it can’t possibly appeal to anyone but the most die-hard fans of these kinds of cop/serial killer flicks, and even then they probably wouldn’t like it much. It’s just garbage; pure, complete garbage. I hate this movie – I hate the pretentiously serious tone it has. I hate the weird, spazzoid directing style that can’t even convey the simple, droll storyline with any kind of coherence. I hate the bland, shapeless lumps the film tries to pass across as characters. I hate the fact that this film was so dull I couldn’t even make any good jokes about it; this isn't my usual keep for reviewing, you know. I'm glad I never have to watch this again. Now can you please release my family, Brazilian terrorists? Pretty please?

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

REVIEW: A&E's Stephen King's Bag of Bones - Part 2 (2011)

Director: Mick Garris
Starring: Pierce Brosnan, Melissa George

So here it is, the second part of the Bag of Bones review and the conclusion to this dark and mysterious Stephen King epic. How does it hold up? Well, I will say more things happened in this installment, and as a result, has more potential to be incredibly silly and over the top. But while it does tend to get egregious, it also manages to be entertaining and captivating all the same. Confused yet? Let’s dig in further…

Basically the problems here are the same problems as on the first part. It’s too long, and could have easily been shortened. But it’s saved yet again by that certain unnamable something that just keeps you watching anyway. This doesn’t really get too boring, and really doesn’t feel like two hours, either. Noonan’s detective work as he looks into the disappearance of Sara Tidwell and tries to figure out what his ghosts are telling him is surprisingly entertaining. The characters of Mattie and her daughter, while they don’t get much screentime, are energetically played, and we are endeared to them by the fact that they are a small family trying to stick together. The villains are pretty stupid, though. Especially that old witch-lady working for Max Devore…yergh. She looks like a caricature of a caricature!

Most of the main problems unique to this part come out because of the lack of time devoted to certain subplots. Like how fast Noonan and Mattie get intimate; what, didn’t they only have 2 scenes or so before this? Seems a bit fast, but then again, hey, it is pretty dire circumstances after all. The involvement of the rest of the town in trying to attack our main heroes is seriously underplayed. It seemed more like an afterthought, dropped quickly as soon as everything was resolved. So they just let it be that half the town was trying to kill them? And for that matter, Mike himself kills at least two people during this whole thing, and where’s his remorse? I know he did it for good reasons, but still, you’d think he’d be a little more shaken up!

The one thing I really started to hate was the over-use of repeated phrases. The first one only had “One for yes, two for no,” but this one also has “Lie down, bag of bones” and “Custody has its responsibilities!” as well, both of which are repeated several times…over and over and over and over again.

But the story is exciting and the characters are good, and so you’re kept watching anyway, despite the flaws. It’s a genuinely good story. What more is there to say? Stephen King’s main draw has always been the excitement and tension he injects into his stories like shark poison, and that is no different here. Bag of Bones isn’t the best Stephen King film adaptation, but I’ve also seen worse.

Monday, December 12, 2011

REVIEW: A&E's Stephen King's Bag of Bones - part 1 (2011)

Director: Mick Garris
Starring: Pierce Brosnan, Melissa George

Stephen King is an institution these days, and pretty much anything he puts his name on is gonna sell like mad. Luckily for us, his recent work is some of his strongest ever, with recent novels like Under the Dome and anthology Full Dark, No Stars being incredibly lively and vicious. I was surprised when I found out they were making a TV miniseries out of Bag of Bones, one of his more experimental and adventurous novels, in the tradition of his classic 90s miniseries, and the question on everyone’s lips is, is it any good? Well, yes and no.

This succumbs to a lot of the problems that most Stephen King miniseries – no, ALL of them – have had: it’s too long and feels the need to show everything. And I mean everything – they don’t really leave much to the imagination. This could’ve easily been shortened to something more economic, like a 2 hour movie or so, but I get the idea King likes to have everything exactly the way it was in his book, whether that means sacrificing clarity and power or not. It’s a pretty understandable case of writer’s ego, but it doesn’t prevent this from becoming too bloated and cumbersome.

The actual story is about a writer (surprised?) named Mike Noonan (Pierce Brosnan), who loses his wife in an automobile accident and decides to move up to their old lake cabin to recuperate. There he meets Mattie (Melissa George), a young mother fighting for custody of her child against the small-town maven Max Devore (William Schallert), and also gets involved with ghosts. Now, this first half is only setting up the whole story, introducing all the players and themes of what we’re going to get in the second half. There are several parts, however, that just drag, like when Noonan is under the ghostly, dreamlike spell of dead singer Sara Tidwell – this segment just drags on and on and on. And I swear, if he says “One for yes, two for no” one more time, I’ll kill him.

These are the problems that really bring this thing down, and it’s a shame, because otherwise it’s pretty good, when it gets kicking. Bag of Bones’ strength lies in the characters and their relationships, as it did in the book. Noonan is sympathetic because of his loss, and perhaps the only reason the elongated, dragged out storytelling style works is because we get to see his grief in full naked light, and thus can empathize more. Mattie is tough but guarded and spooked, and so we’re invested into seeing how her character develops – seeing as she opens up a tiny bit to Noonan every time they talk. Bag of Bones in the book was a great story because of the expansive romance elements tying in with the ethereal ghost story, and the movie definitely captures some of that, even if the ghost elements come across as a bit silly here. I’m sorry, but some of the scenes where he’s talking to what he thinks is his dead wife just come off as a bit too unbelievable to work.

But overall I kind of enjoyed this anyway. Despite its problems – too long, too melodramatic, etc – there’s a certain ja ne sais quois about Bag of Bones’ first part that kept me watching smoothly for the whole 2 hours. Now, there are still another 2 hours, and this cuts off right about where things start to get intense, but as far as this part goes, it’s not too bad. If you’re a Stephen King fan, you’ll certainly like it. Check it out at your own peril and TUNE IN TOMORROW FOR MY REVIEW OF PART 2!

Sunday, December 11, 2011

REVIEW: Mr. Brooks (2007)

Director: Bruce A. Evans
Starring: Kevin Costner, Demi Moore, Dane Cook, William Hurt, Danielle Panabaker

One of the most flat out entertaining movies of the last few years. I’m not entirely sure of Mr. Brooks’ artistic merit, but it’s a fun, clever, well put together and energetic romp that I always love to watch whenever I see it. Starring Kevin Costner, William Hurt and Demi Moore, Mr. Brooks weaves a complex, fast-paced tale of betrayal, desires and bloodlust.

Mr. Brooks (Costner) is a serial killer, and there’s the first draw that makes this thing more interesting than your average cop thriller. This isn’t like Dexter where the hero is killing for a justifiable reason, no – Mr. Brooks just kills random people who haven’t done anything, and only because he is addicted to it. You could make the argument that his want to stop makes him a more likable character, but the ending of the movie squashes that one, and I think the fact that the film asks you to try and root for this guy is part of the challenge and the fun. He is aided by his sarcastic, murderous alter-ego (Hurt), appearing to him in spirit-form, urging him to kill and often being the little devil on his shoulder. Except there really isn’t an angel on his shoulder at all.

Part of the reason this is so much fun is because they have SO MUCH material that they can throw at you, and they do – there are about 4 different plots going on here. Mr. Brooks is trying to get rid of his killing urge, all while dealing with the blackmailing weasel Dane Cook’s character is, and also worrying about his daughter, who is a) pregnant, b) dropped out of school and c) may have killed someone, all at the same time. Meanwhile, his rival, a detective (Moore) is going through a divorce lawsuit and having trouble staying afloat in the bureaucratic tide because of it. There’s a lot of stuff going on and it’s handled with a burning, kinetic energy that just makes this fun to watch. Everything feels urgent and important. That’s a big part of a good movie of any genre. You have to feel invested. And with this, you really are.

The casting is plain odd – Dane Cook, Kevin Costner and Demi Moore together in a movie is just surreal – and I have to say some of the acting is a bit shaky, and the only reason why this isn’t an out and out modern classic. Sometimes they get a bit dull (in Costner and Hurt’s cases) or melodramatic (in Moore’s case – can she possibly grit her teeth any more?), and Dane Cook is pretty annoying. But most of the time it doesn’t offend too much, and everyone does seem really into what they’re doing, even when the performances are a little on the B-grade side.

I think the film is strongest when it’s focusing on Mr. Brooks and his daughter Jane (Danielle Panabaker), as here it’s where we see Mr. Brooks’ character in the best light, and learn the most about him. The fact that he’s a serial killer looking out for his daughter in such an odd way is really interesting, and the two have some great scenes together. One of them is when he’s talking to her in the kitchen after he finds out she is pregnant, and the other is at the very end, and I won’t spoil that for you. One of the film’s best subplots is the mystery behind Jane’s dropping out of school.

The main bulk of the film focuses on Mr. Brooks’ battle of wits with Mr. Smith (Dane Cook), who caught him in a photograph the night of his last kill. Mr. Smith does not go to the police and instead wants Mr. Brooks to teach him how to kill someone. Demi Moore’s subplot also takes up a lot of the runtime, and along with all the other subplots, the film becomes a virtual meltdown of action-packed insanity. The film works because of its fast pace, as it keeps the thrills and suspense building right until the very end.

By the climax, you’ll be howling for more. Mr. Brooks might not be the most tasteful film ever, but it is exciting, intense and addictive as hell. It goes for the throat and provides a rollicking, insane good time for everyone. Go see it. 

Saturday, December 10, 2011

REVIEW: Solitary Man (2009)

WARNING: SPOILERS

Why do we make mistakes? Why are we drawn to keep doing horrible things even though we know they will ruin us anyway? This movie tries to answer those questions and I think it did a really good job at that. Starring Michael Douglas, Solitary Man is a drama that really works and makes you think. Let’s take a look.

Director: Brian Koppelman
Starring: Michael Douglass, Mary Louise Parker, Sarah Sarandon

The film actually starts off as kind of a typical comedic drama with Douglas having to take his girlfriend’s daughter to her new college, as his girlfriend has come down with the flu. As it turns out, Douglas actually knows the school and has friends there – as well as trying to get in good with the higher-ups for his car dealership business. He starts talking to a kid played by Jesse Eisenberg, and shows him around, giving him tips on how to get girls. At this point the movie looks like it’s going to be your typical comedy about trying to pick up chicks, but that all radically changes when Douglas ends up sleeping with his girlfriend’s daughter.

Yes, he sleeps with a girl who must be a third of his age…this is really where you start to see what kind of a movie Solitary Man is. Douglas’s character is a smarmy, slick old devil who talks like a motivational self-help speaker. “What does he really do for you?” he asks his girlfriend’s daughter, talking about the guy she’s been hanging with. He advises her to look into the future and see where the relationship, and her sex life, will go with the guy. And then they end up ravaging each other shortly after.

This doesn’t faze Douglas at all as he just keeps on doing what he does, sleeping with women and digging himself deeper and deeper as he alienates himself from his family, ruins his professional reputation and ends up having to take a job at a little diner. The whole is a masterfully constructed chronicle of a man’s downfall. And he’s enjoying every second of it. He takes it in stride. You’re not supposed to look up to this man, you’re supposed to feel sorry for him, because beyond the bravado and the arrogance there’s a man who just doesn’t know what else to do.

Really the culmination of the whole film is at the end when he finally explains to his ex-wife why he’s been doing all of this stuff in the first place – because no one stopped him. He just kept going and going. There’s a lot to be said here about the things people do and their underlying reasons. This is a very sprawling, dramatic film about a lot of things, wrapped up rather idiosyncratically with brilliant dialogue and a downward spiral of events. It's about a man who thinks he knows what he's talking about in the realm of human relationships but really is the only lonely one out of the whole cast - everyone else has settled down, and for the better. This is not your typical film, but it is compulsively watchable and will teach you a few things, perhaps about yourself or perhaps about others. Fascinating and idiosyncratic. See it.

REVIEW: Skyline (2010)

Co-written with Tzeentch and Sol.

Since this movie was released, it has garnered seemingly nothing but vitriolic hatred. Being a curious nonbiased party, I decided to check it out and see what all the hate was about. And here is what resulted:

Director: The Brothers Strause
Starring: Eric Balfour, Scottie Thompson, David Zayas

The film starts off appropriately enough with a chick getting out of bed and vomiting into a toilet, which is the feeling we’ll all probably have after this is over. Notice that she’s vomiting, which means she’ll be our main character – as opposed to taking a shower, which would have simply meant she was gonna die first. It being a horror flick, and all.

Then we get her boyfriend looking into some blue lights and getting veins all over his face, a phenomenon which will surely not get him into the Fashion Club for Men, despite the fact that otherwise, he looks like a model. Because this whole scene made so much sense, the movie decides to pull us back ’15 hours earlier,’ when people could still ride in planes!

Ah the good old days *sniff*

They talk about some stupid shit and then we see that they’re arriving to party with people in bathing suits, as they meet Jarrod’s friend Terry – who I’m pretty sure is actually his secret gay lover. I mean, these two putzes act completely all over each other the entire flick. It’s borderline parody. Not to mention they both look like they could be on the cover of this month’s issue of a gay pride magazine. Add that to the fact that they pay more attention to each other than to their girlfriends and you have a silly, poorly written cast of characters.

Friends or more than friends? YOU DECIDE!

So it’s set up that Terry wants Jarrod to come work with him at…unspecified business…in LA. But Jarrod doesn’t want to, because his life back home sucks, and what would he do about his girlfriend? Uh…well, gee, you blithering idiot, how about MOVE TO LA AND TAKE THE DAMN JOB. YOU’LL MAKE MORE MONEY AND HAVE A BETTER LIFE. Why would you EVER choose living in a crappy, barely-getting-by lifestyle at home over a unique opportunity like this?! I mean…how can I spell this out any clearer??? Take the job!

But it’s OK, because this plot thread will never be brought up again. No, seriously. Oh well. Might as well just keep watching the half-assed 90210 rip-offs this movie seems to be addicted to.

Woohoo, partying and bikinis! Fun in real life. Not so much to watch in a supposed thriller.

So then Jarrod’s girlfriend reveals that she is pregnant, and they both partake in some boring dialogue that could have very well been an ad for contraceptives. Because…that’s what I want to see in a horror movie.

After that they all just kind of pass out, until they wake up to the blue lights, and the first scene is repeated all over again. Joy! Because the terrible acting, TV-movie picture quality and lack of tension works SO WELL when you just repeat the same damn scene twice in 20 minutes! This time we do get to see what happens afterwards, though, as Jarrod’s veiny eye thing is cured in a matter of seconds and he gets back to normal again. Then we get to see truly heartbreaking problems like Terry’s girlfriend finding out that he’s cheating on her! Gasp! Stop the alien invasions, WE CAN’T HAVE ANYONE CHEATING ON THEIR GIRLFRIENDS!

Oh man, look at those epic lights and those ominous dark clouds...this is some really serious stuff! Let's---wait, wait, wait...hold on...
HE WAS CHEATING ON HER? Well screw the aliens, THIS is clearly where we should be focusing our movie-watching.

So they all decide to make a break for it and run outside. Terry and the chick he was cheating with get into one car because Terry’s girlfriend won’t let them into hers…seriously, does this chick KNOW what’s going on? Does she even pay attention? YOUR LIVES ARE AT STAKE, YOU STUPID…ugh, forget it. Luckily Terry and the chick he was cheating with both get killed seconds later, so the whole plot thread was pointless. Yay!

I mean…uh…yeah, it was stupid. This movie is messing with my brain.

Also I give this movie the award for the quickest sub-plot ever introduced and subsequently dropped. They meet this other random couple in the parking lot who argue about whether or not to go with them. The guy doesn’t want to, and so the main characters move on without them. Five minutes later he gets eaten, and so the girl teams up with them…only for HER to get eaten too, once they’re outside! God. This movie is about as coherent as a splatter painting by the 8-armed goddess Shiva.

Then they meet Detective Angel Batista from Dexter, because lord knows HE didn’t have anything better to be doing at the time…must have been during Dexter’s off-season.

"Where's my dignity?!"

He plays the very important function of ‘guy to foil Jarrod’s idiotic plans for the rest of the movie, because none of the other idiots could do that even with this movie’s poor, flimsy writing. And once they get back to the hotel, they pretty much just go back to exactly what they were doing before they left – arguing, whining and moping, with the occasional break for looking out the window at the blue alien light thingys. Woohoo?

So yeah, most of the rest of the movie is literally just these morons arguing about whether or not to go outside. I’m not even exaggerating, that’s pretty much all you get. It’s pretty much like this:

JERROD: Oh, I think we should go back outside, because even though like 3 people died last time, things CAN’T POSSIBLY go wrong again! This time we’ll…uh…well, just listen to me!

BATISTA: No, and you will listen to my raspy Spanish accent!

Oh, except when we get shots of the worst CGI since the Langoliers with the movie’s aliens:

Yeah, I really don't believe that's actually "there." Sorry movie.

So yeah, the military comes in and bombs the hell out of the alien ships, which does nothing, basically. But then later on when the humans confront them, the aliens are defeated with bricks and the humans’ own fists. This may seem like stupid writing, but…no, I got nothing. It is stupid writing.

The movie ends with humanity enslaved inside the alien ship and Jarrod becoming one of them, although betraying them to save his girlfriend and her baby. It’s very confusing, not explained much at all and mostly comes off as silly with horrible special effects…but thank God it’s over!

I hate to go along with everyone else’s opinion BUUUUT this movie just sucks. The characters are crap, the story is confusing and poorly explained, the special effects are awful and you just never buy it. You never really believe there’s any alien abduction happening; it’s just sloppy. The whole thing just feels like one of those SyFy channel original movies most of the time. But hey, what are we supposed to expect when the movie is directed by people known for special effects wizardry (as the Brothers Strause are mostly known for the effects of movies like Avatar and 300)? This is crap. If you have a chance to see it, don't, and that's really all there is to it.