Iro's One Movie a Day Thread

→ in
Tools    





Welcome to the human race...
#9 - What We Do in the Shadows
Jemaine Clement and Taiki Waititi, 2014



A mockumentary centring on four vampires who share a house in Wellington, New Zealand and their day-to-day (or is that night-to-night?) lives, which are complicated when one of their intended victims is turned into a vampire instead.

What's a better type of comedy - the one that's cleverly written but doesn't make you laugh out loud, or the one that's not too smart but still gets you chuckling? What We Do in the Shadows definitely falls into the former category - despite a simple yet ingenious premise and a sharp take on vampire lore, most of it is merely amusing. It runs through almost every trope associated with vampire fiction over the course of a quick eighty minutes, which is about how long the gag can last. Fortunately, it helps that the main trio of vampires (the fourth one, an 8,000-year-old Orlock-like creature called Peter, only pops up at crucial plot points) have enough odd-couple chemistry to keep the humour flowing. As befitting the mockumentary angle, the vampires go about talking about parts of their everyday lives - the struggle of not being able to look in mirrors, being unable to get into clubs because they need to be invited, and (in one memorably black sequence), the prim and proper Viago going the extra mile to make sure his victim has a nice last date before he feeds on her. The lead characters all get sufficient development and their own subplots - selfish "young" vampire Deacon has a thrall who is constantly doing favours for him in order to become a vampire herself, while Vladislav is an older vampire clearly based on Bram Stoker's Dracula who constantly grumbles about his old arch-nemesis "the Beast" in such a way that you know a confrontation is inevitable. Having the film establish a climax to work towards - in this case, the yearly gathering of supernatural creatures known as the "Unholy Masquerade" - is a good move to counter the relative aimlessness of the film's premise.

I generally liked this film, but it's clear around the hour mark or so that it's running out of steam and the climax not only feels a bit forced, but it involves shakycam to the point that it's hard to tell what's going on. It's a good concept and there's some serious talent on both sides of the camera - shakycam climax aside, the effects work on offer here is rather impressive and every actor is at the very least serviceable. The gags are clever enough, even though I didn't exactly laugh at them - not even the scene of Viago laying down towels in order to avoid getting a victim's blood on his antique couch only to end up accidentally hitting his victim's artery and getting blood everywhere. It's not a bad way to spend an hour and a bit but yeah, this is one of those films where calling it "clever" feels like a backhanded compliment more than anything else.

__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



I wasn't aware of Electric Boogaloo: The Wild, Untold Story of Cannon Films!, so thanks for that. I look forward to seeing it. It's exactly the kind of thing I love (as I did Ozploitation and Machette Maidens). I quite like the sound of What We Do in the Shadows, too. It sounds a bit like something I wrong back in the 90's, without the mockumentary style.
__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.



Welcome to the human race...
Yeah, I hadn't heard of Electric Boogaloo until I saw it in a video store the other day and immediately decided that I had to see it. What few Cannon films I've seen have been pretty bad (but at least entertainingly bad, I think) and, at the very least, this movie made me shift Death Wish 3 a little higher up my to-watch list.



Ah, Death Wish 3. It spawned one of my favourite games on my little ol' Spectrum.

Those Cannon films were quite a big part of my early teen years. I always used to like seeing that logo come on screen.



Never heard of What We Do in the Shadows, but it sounds fun. I think Jemaine Clement is hilarious, but I haven't seen him in anything in a while.
__________________



Welcome to the human race...
#10 - The Ward
John Carpenter, 2010



In 1960s Oregon, an amnesiac named Kristen (Amber Heard) is arrested after burning a house down and is sent to a psychiatric facility. Once there, she notices some suspicious activity and soon discovers that there is a malevolent force picking off the patients one by one.

Ah, John Carpenter. He's made at least a couple of my all-time favourite movies and I've generally liked most of his work but he's made his fair share of stinkers, especially over the course of the past thirty years. While I'll readily defend In the Mouth of Madness and Escape From L.A., he hasn't really made a good film since They Live. Sure, the "Cigarette Burns" episode of Masters of Horror showed he hadn't completely lost his touch (even if it was basically "In the Mouth of Madness but about movies instead of books"), but then he messed it up a bit with the weirdly off-kilter "Pro-Life" episode. For the longest time, it looked like his final contribution to cinema would be the mishmash of former glories that was Ghosts of Mars...then he made The Ward.

It's an interesting thing watching a movie you don't really expect to be good but still hold out a little hope for on the basis that you're watching one of your favourite directors, but it becomes clear from the moment that the credits aren't in Albertus typeface that, despite his name hanging over the title, this doesn't quite feel like a Carpenter movie. The central premise did have some potential - setting the film in an old mental institution with its capacity for sadistic staffers, nightmarish treatment methods and general detachment from reality was unsettling enough without the introduction of a supernatural threat. Of course, that does leave the film wide open to a certain number of clichés, up to and including the suspiciously calm psychiatrist (played by Jared Harris). It also doesn't help that the other patients in the ward subscribe to a number of basic mental patient stereotypes - the upbeat friendly one, the mean one, the cowardly one and the childlike one. Heard's protagonist doesn't seem to have much of a personality at all and no real goal other than to get out of the hospital and also find out what's going on. The horror is tried-and-true - plenty of jump scares, darkness, a few graphic death scenes, but some of it does get ridiculous, especially when...

WARNING: "The Ward" spoilers below
Sarah, the group's mean girl, just finishes having a conversation with the others in the main room before walking past the nearby nurses' station and seeing the killer ghost, somehow managing to scream without alerting anyone else and runs off only to be captured and killed by the ghost.


Also, I think the ending is worth talking about so here come the spoilers again...

WARNING: "The Ward" spoilers below
At first the reveal behind the ghost's nature is that it's a former patient named Alice who was murdered by the other patients in the ward and is taking its revenge on them. When Kristen "kills" the ghost and demands an explanation from Harris' character, he explains that her real name is Alice and that she developed multiple personality disorder as a means of coping with being kidnapped and molested. Each of the girls was a split personality and the whole film was taking place in Alice's mind, so their deaths were simply a metaphor for how Alice was slowly getting cured...until "Kristen" appeared and shook things up again. The film's very last scene involves a cured Alice getting ready to leave the ward - until Kristen jumps out of a mirror and the movie smashes to black.


I think the fact that I even have to question whether or not that ending makes sense of the rest of the film or just creates even more plot holes means it's probably going to invoke the latter, but whatever. The Ward is definitely not a classic and not even one of Carpenter's better movies, but I didn't hate it. Even though you can't teach an old dog like Carpenter many new horror tricks, this didn't feel like a complete waste of time and built up a decent enough atmosphere and featured some fairly disturbing death scenes. Unfortunately, the rest of it is still kind of a chore to get through, so it goes on the negative end of the scale. Hardly the last hurrah a director of his caliber deserves.




Carpenter has made more movies that I hated than I loved, so I'm not a fan. I've yet to hear anything positive about The Ward, even from the biggest Carpenter apologists. I expected your rating to be even lower, to be honest. I haven't seen it, but I'm sure I will at some point.



Hmm... the cover looks good, and Amber Heard... I can see why you'd watch it in the first place anyway.

I watched a random clip and I dunno... on the one hand the acting was pretty bad, and on the other hand I'm almost curious about what happens next after that clip... and before for that matter.



Welcome to the human race...
#11 - Cowboys and Aliens
Jon Favreau, 2011



A bunch of cowboys fight a bunch of aliens.

Okay, for real this time: in the Wild West, an amnesiac cowboy (Daniel Craig) wanders into a small town and stirs up some trouble with a cattle baron (Harrison Ford) just in time for a bunch of alien spaceships to abduct most of the townsfolk. Craig and Ford reluctantly join forces (along with a bunch of other mismatched characters) in order to find the aliens and take back what's theirs.

As if the title didn't give me enough of a hint, the fact that there are no less than eight screenwriters (three for the screen story based on the source comic book and another five that contributed to the screenplay) named in the opening credits should have been enough of a warning sign that I was in for one messy excuse for a blockbuster. I can't speak as to the quality of the source comic, but the movie that resulted...well, where do I begin? Characters are flat archetypes whose development is predictable at best and inconsistent at worst (the biggest offender being Ford, whose character manages to go from a corrupt landowner willing to physically torture employees over some dead cows to a sympathetic Civil War veteran who slowly bonds with the other characters - this development is more than a little jarring). Craig plays a real Man with No Name kind of character who slowly regains his memories (at one point getting them all back as a result of a Native American ritual, no less), but even so his backstory and character arc are awfully predictable and unsatisfactory. Even Olivia Wilde's turn as a mysterious woman who's drawn to Craig seems like she might get something interesting to do but what she does get is extremely illogical. Other characters are basically window dressing and you can easily pick what happens with a lot of them, if not all of them.

For a big-budget effects-laden blockbuster, it's pretty damn boring for the most part. As if unsurprising character developments aren't enough, the action just kind of...happens, with the only memorable parts being so because of how it's a bit too implausible and illogical (such as Craig's character riding a horse alongside an alien drone and being able to jump onto the drone from the horse, or the general poorness of the climatic battle). This stuff doesn't make much sense even within the context of the kind of movie that unapologetically calls itself Cowboys and Aliens. You'd think that having a name like that would mean that this film was at least a little tongue-in-cheek about its ludicrous premise, but no, it plays out as straight-faced and blandly as possible. As a result, it feels like a film that would end up on Mystery Science Theater 3000 but with the budget multipled by ten thousand. Then again, given the quality of this movie's other attributes I think the only thing that would make it significantly worse would be jokes that didn't work.

On the plus side...I guess the effects are alright sometimes. The climax does kind of play out like District 9 on a bigger yet strangely inferior scale. Also, there is a lot of blue and orange in this movie. I mean, a lot. Some of the photography looks alright - at least the stuff that's not too dark for you to see much, of course. Otherwise, yeah, this is a dud of the highest order. It has just enough intrigue to keep me invested in what's happening, which I concede is a strength, but that hardly makes up for the thin plotline, poorly developed characters and effects of dubious quality. It's a shame because the TimeSplitters games gave me ridiculously high hopes for how a "cowboys versus aliens" conflict would play out and that's what led me to check this out in the first place - unfortunately, this film is no place for fun and games.




I was almost worried for a second there when I saw Cowboys and Aliens. I'm so glad you trashed it though. XP

You should watch Alien vs Ninja next. I have only seen a clip, but it's got that so bad it's good potential I think. I mean it looks a lot worse than Cowboys and Aliens.

I also saw some parts of Lake Placid because it was playing at work today. You might get a kick out of the wooden straight-faced performances by well known actors.

Did you actually get a kick out of Cowboys and Aliens at it's expense, or were you just tortured the entire time?



Welcome to the human race...
I was almost worried for a second there when I saw Cowboys and Aliens. I'm so glad you trashed it though. XP

You should watch Alien vs Ninja next. I have only seen a clip, but it's got that so bad it's good potential I think. I mean it looks a lot worse than Cowboys and Aliens.

I also saw some parts of Lake Placid because it was playing at work today. You might get a kick out of the wooden straight-faced performances by well known actors.

Did you actually get a kick out of Cowboys and Aliens at it's expense, or were you just tortured the entire time?

I might consider Alien vs Ninja but in all probability I won't go out of my way to watch it. I remember seeing chunks of Lake Placid back in the day - not enough to count as a full viewing - but it does have some potential, I supposed. I just watched Cowboys and Aliens because it was on TV at the gym and I needed something to occupy me while I used the treadmill. I don't think it was a torturous experience, just bland.
is sort of my go-to "bland" rating where a bad film isn't horrible enough to hate but I don't really get any enjoyment out of it either. It doesn't leave a lot of room for "getting a kick", I don't think.



Well, I don't really blame you. I don't plan on watching Alien vs Ninja either. I don't really get a kick out of movies that are so bad they're good unless I'm watching them with at least one other person and we're making fun of the movie all along the way. It's really our jokes at the movie's expense that are usually funny, not so much the movie itself. At least that's how I felt about Lake Placid and most other bad movies I've seen.



Before it came out, everyone I know was rolling their eyes over the title and trailer for Cowboys & Aliens, but I was actually really looking forward to it. I thought it had great potential to be a fun, exciting, over-the-top, action/adventure, summer blockbuster, but it was pretty disappointing. It took itself too seriously and didn't live up to the potential of its absurd premise. I don't hate it nowhere near as much as you do -- I'd give it
-- but it was definitely underwhelming and forgettable.



#1 - Dead Poets Society
Peter Weir, 1989



Dead Poets Society is about a 1950s boarding school where the new English teacher (Robin Williams) and his unorthodox approach to teaching poetry ends up inspiring a handful of students to form the titular society (technically, to reform it because Williams' character started it during his high school years, but whatever). The consequences are altenately uplifting and devastating.

I have somehow never managed to watch Dead Poets Society from start to finish. The last time I tried it, I watched it all the way up until the last 15-20 minutes when the DVD glitched so I gave up and never got back to finishing it until now. Even though I knew how it ended anyway, I never truly counted it as being 100% "watched". Obviously, I've gone and rectified that. Anyway, as for what I think...

I remember liking it quite a bit on my initial attempt years ago, but watching it now...not so much. Williams definitely gives a strong performance here, with his character getting just enough depth to not seem like some one-dimensional cool teacher archetype. The central cast of male students that make up the titular society - that's a bit more debatable. One character's subplot involves his romantic pursuit of a cheerleader, which does play out rather questionably to say the least (dude, she's passed out/asleep at some jock party and her football hero boyfriend is about ten feet away, do you really think your carpe diem attitude is going to justify stroking her hair and kissing her forehead?) The main subplot, revolving around another character being inspired to try acting despite a fear of disappointing his strict dad, is familiar enough that I have to wonder if knowing how it'd play out would either make it more tragic or just signal how lacking in originality the script felt. Ethan Hawke's turn as a quiet, nervous student (a far cry from the sort of roles he's best known for), does have its moments, especially the scene where Williams forces him to make up a poem in front of the whole classroom, which is honestly a great scene in spite of it being instantly recognisable as the typical "scene where the shy kid learns to express themselves".

By this point, Dead Poets Society has seeped into the cultural consciousness enough that it feels like a parody of itself at times. It's got a handful of choice moments (as trite as it may seem, that final scene really does leave an impression), is amply aided by Williams' remarkable rendition of a fairly basic character archetype and the acting by the main characters is decent enough to sell their admittedly all-too-familiar character arcs (except in the very shallow romantic subplot mentioned above, of course). Am I likely to invest another two hours in another viewing? Probably not. Do I reckon people should see it if they haven't already? Sure, why not.

Maybe it's just me, but I never review films unless I have watched them from start to finish.



He did. From the review:

Even though I knew how it ended anyway, I never truly counted it as being 100% "watched". Obviously, I've gone and rectified that.