Reviews
My Soul to Take (2010)
Nothing Beyond What's Expected of a Craven Screenplay (Minor Spoilers)
The name Wes Craven carries a lot of weight these days. An "iconic" horror director with a deliciously appropriate last name, Craven has overseen some of the genre's highest grossing films.
But a healthy bottom line does not always equal a good product. While Craven has proved himself a very effective director with an expert sense of mood and timing, his pedigree as a writer is another story. Apart from the Nightmare on Elm Street concept, few of Craven's original creations are particularly compelling on screen. For this reason, I went into My Soul to Take with reserved expectations.
One can't help but think if the characters of this film were a bit more interesting (and significantly less numerous), the concept of the work would have held up better. Instead, the audience is bombarded with with a gaggle of teens who try too hard (but fail) to avoid tired high school stereotypes. They also operate within a strange, alternate-dimensional high school world (not literally, of course) where the popular crowd not only runs the school in a figurative sense, they actually hold meetings to plan and maintain their tyrannical rule, which somehow everybody accepts.
Let me be clear, the reason most GOOD horror works is because it creates a bond between the viewer and film. As the audience, we identify with the world and problems of the characters, and in really good horror work, with the characters themselves. Then, that world (and the characters) is systematically dismantled in a metaphorically gruesome manner. It's horror 101.
This is where MSTT fails. There is no bond forged between the audience and these characters or the world in which they reside. The characters are predictable and wooden, and other than some clever blood-splatters, nothing is interesting (or horrifying) about their destruction. The world of the film is also just too over-the-top for the audience to buy. I'm not certain if Craven was aiming for a metaphorical representation of high school bullying (a hot topic these days), but if he was, he did so without any sense of subtlety, and thus, missed the mark by a wide margin. As in many sup-par horror flicks, nothing is believable even before the blood starts to spray, which kills the opportunity for the film to do its job in the latter acts.
The film does make one feeble attempt at a thematic subtext; the performance art of "being a man." While an interesting theme to use in a horror film, it does little more than to generate some bits of bad dialogue (likely a clever guise Craven uses to distract us from the fact that he cannot think of realistic or clever things for characters to say after they've been stabbed), and also to put a misshapen bow on the dysfunctional storyline. The thought process in this theme may have been promising here, but the promise simply isn't kept.
The concept of the film itself is not a bad one at its core. A sadistic serial killer housing many different "souls" (an interesting, albeit unoriginal take on multiple personality disorder) who disperse into newborns upon his death. It is a nice set-up, and I'm sure it went over like gangbusters in the pitch meeting. But the confusing nature of the subsequent storyline fails to deliver goods. There are no "rules" stated directly or indirectly about how or why this works, and while ambiguity can be an effective device in horror, it can also shine the spotlight on a profound lack of creativity.
The film's lone high points are in the jump-scares that we have come to expect from Craven. Here, he has not lost his touch. Despite the general apathy for the film's characters, there were some well-timed jolts and genuinely creepy images.
Ultimately, as in Craven's other work as a writer, his focus is on the scares themselves, and not the set-up. And for this reason, My Soul to Take fails to be an effective horror film.
The Shield (2002)
Don't believe the "anti-hype," The Shield is as good as television gets
I have read numerous negative reviews of The Shield recently, and am troubled by their narrow-mindedness. I'm even more troubled to think that such jaded, subjective reviews might cause others from missing out on what is probably the best piece of programming ever to flicker across the television screen.
First, if I may address the so-called knocks on The Shield. The two main beefs with the show are camera work and content. It is true, the camera work is VERY different when compared to standard police shows. Many viewers on IMDb have called out the cinematography and editing as rushed, and amateur. If you're a cinema purist and love the classic shot-reverse shot technique of filming a scene, then you have some adapting to do. The Shield has a rough, gritty film style of unconventional angles and moving shots done by jerky handhelds. While some brush this off as poor work, I laud it as genius. This rough style of filming is done to amplify the chaotic setting of the show. Smooth shots and slick transitions that you see in Law and Order or CSI would not tell the story of The Shield. It will take some getting used to, but after an episode or two, it is an absolute pleasure to watch.
The second problem many have is with the content. TV ratings exist for a reason, as do the pre-show disclaimers. Pay attention to them. If you are squeamish, or, dare I say, uptight, this is not the show for you. Many reviews on this site pass the violence and depravity of the show as immature and gratuitous. Again, The Shield strays from the norm. While many cop shows focus on the investigation of crimes, the Shield focuses on the crimes themselves, and how living in a world plagued with this violence and immorality can twist the human spirit and psyche, sometimes beyond repair. Those of you who get up in arms at the first inkling of immorality, try using some objectivity. The show does not promote the world it portrays. It is a chronicle of human struggle within extreme conditions. Sometimes that struggle gets messy. Just like real life, right......?
The Shield is a character-driven marvel. Its characters are complex and engaging, and the writers unfold gritty, sharp -witted story line that is never less than spectacular. The acting is superb and definitely overlooked by many critics as of late. From start to the pending finish, this has been the best story-telling that I have ever seen on television. It is not conventional TV drama, divided into forgettable, disjointed 60 minute segments. It is a continuous story, meant to be enjoyed in its entirety. Most of the bad-mouthing that occurs is completely ignorant to this fact. If you want cut-and dry cop stories that wrap up at the top of the hour, complete with the bad guy going to jail, stick to Law and Order. The Shield is much, much deeper, and ultimately much better.
One word of advice I have to potential viewers, start at the beginning. This is NOT a show that you can jump into half-way through and get the true experience, and thus, it is a time commitment. It is a tremendous build-up of tension, and you MUST start from the beginning to truly appreciate it. Rent season one, and go from there. And prepare to view a masterpiece.
The Cave (2005)
A good attempt, but ultimately, another bust
This film, although staying true to typical Hollywood thriller clichés, does accomplish a few good things.
By far the best thing about this film is the feeling of claustrophobia it puts upon the viewer. All of the tight spaces and underwater shots really made me feel ill at ease, which is a mark that a horror film is doing its job. For those of you who have seen the original Alien, it's a bit like that.....only in an underwater cave. (The creatures even share physical characteristics...from what you see of them...with Ridley Scott's space monsters).
The film also creates tension in that the subject matter is a bit foreign, i.e. cave exploration. The characters wander around in an enormous underground maze, and unlike most horror flicks, you really can't think of an obvious solution. It's not a film where the characters stare blindly at an blatant remedy for their situation, and finally find it at the last second. The viewer feels just as lost as some of the characters (which, I will admit, becomes borderline annoying after a while) and thus, a good level of tension is created.
Another neat little underlying device the film utilizes is the feeling of constantly being followed. Sound is a big part of this, in that the creepy, cricket-like chirping of the creatures follows the viewer throughout the entire film. A lot of the camera work (especially in the underwater scenes) adds to this effect.
While the film's use of these devices is borderline brilliant, the rest of the movie is laughable. A hole-filled plot paired with disposable, static characters and unconvincing acting make the film another forgettable horror flick.
The most frustrating thing of all is that the monsters are never fully shown. They are visible mostly in brief flashes. In the rare occasions when their entire forms make it on-screen, they are moving so fast that one still cannot get a good feel for what they would look like. I waited for that one big long shot where the hero stares down the monster, and it never came. Big disappointment here, and it made the film feel cheap.
I'd say it's worth seeing in the theater, since it's only good points won't be done justice on your television (unless of course, you have a really nice home entertainment center). It's an entertaining film, and I do not regret going to see it. It's not one I would see again, however.
Buying the Cow (2002)
A little diamond in the rough
Hidden in the midst of straight-to-video releases, this film is a head and shoulders above the rest, and it boggles my mind that it did not achieve theatrical release.
While the subject matter is somewhat unoriginal (Games a man must play to land a "perfect woman" and the pros & cons of commitment/marriage), the film has a magnificent script that gives these themes a freshness not seen since Swingers.
Perhaps the film's strongest suit is the cast. Reynolds, Bellamy, O'Connell, and Livingston work great together, and never once does the witty dialog seem forced or unbelievable. The interaction seems realistic, and most importantly, personal (from the male standpoint, anyway). The film is smart and thoughtful, giving a variety of perspectives on the subject matter.
The only beef I have with this film (no pun intended) is that the ending is a bit abrupt (I won't give anything away, but you'll see what I mean). I felt a little more elaboration might have tied things up a bit better. However, don't let this deter you, Buying the Cow is a must-see.