Sunday, February 27, 2005
Movie madness - don't read this if you still plan to see "Saw".
[get it - see saw]
Okay, so I just watched the movie "Saw". Before you say "Well Mr. Hunter, there is two hours you will never get back", I should say that this movie does have some redeeming qualities for those people who like the horror genre. The Premise, for example, is pretty good, the acting is not bad. Carey Elwes (who has done nothing I liked since Mel Brookes' Robin Hood: Men in Tights) can't really hold up to being on screen as long as he is but Leigh Whannell (also a co-writer) was very good.
It was depressing to see where Danny Glover has gotten to and the movie was gorier than it was scary, the pseudo-villain was pretty banal and the real villain was as ethereal as to me non-frightening. Still James Wan and his buddy Whannell had one good idea and a few other ideas to back it up. They were obviously given a decent budget and they equally obviously didn't really care.The non-linear story telling was more than a waste of time and on several occasions it was difficult to tell where the movie was (did this action happen in the past?). Movies like Pulp Fiction demonstrated the benefits of non-linear (split narrative) story-telling and Saw showed us it can fail.
Mostly this movie bothered me because these guys didn't care. They didn't care about little things like making certain that the background in the Polaroid showing the kidnapped wife and kid was the same background that the wife and kid were in front of. They didn't care that two guys with more than six hours on their hands could, in fact, hacksaw through a piece of non-galvanized three inch chain. They didn't care that you can not just send electricity through any conduit and have those attached to it get zapped or that a doctor standing a few feet from a guy for six hours or more might notice that he is breathing.
I like the horror genre and have seen some absolutely awful horror movies. Movies that make Saw look like a masterpiece. What I hate, however, is that this movie was all about getting us to see the movie using scenes that worked well for 30 second commercials and not a care was given as to whether anyone would like it post viewing. There was no deep pride in this movie. It started as a cool idea and got no further. No one put any heart and soul into it and no one thought of hiring anyone to make certain that it made sense.
This kind of thing has been getting worse and worse since, say Basic Instinct, when Nick Curran (Michael Douglas) is accused of shooting a woman with a 9mm pistol and is asked by the chief of police to hand over his own. Curran's weapon is a .38 Caliber revolver but the chief of police smells it anyway to make certain it has not been fired even though the bullet that was recovered from the girl could not possibly have come from that gun.
I know, the problem started before then but it is getting worse. While more and more drivel is hitting the theatres less and less time is being taken to make certain that things are right. I mean, why bother? The audience will be packed with teenagers who want to be scared; all we need to do is scare them. Two options: gross them out or have things appear suddenly. Suspense? What? No. That Amityville stuff is too risky. Too difficult to make work.
I have no problem with gross and shocking. If Hollywood is unable to find the talent to make a really scary movie that is fine. Gross me out and scare me. But don't insult my intelligence. Get some continuity experts. If you are using science, get a science guy. Hell, get a grade twelve physics major who will work for free if you let him watch the nude scenes. I am not looking for high drama and fine acting here but at least make the integrity of your work be relative to your budget and projected box office sales and stop saying, like I know you do "No one will notice that anyway. Just leave it in."
[get it - see saw]Okay, so I just watched the movie "Saw". Before you say "Well Mr. Hunter, there is two hours you will never get back", I should say that this movie does have some redeeming qualities for those people who like the horror genre. The Premise, for example, is pretty good, the acting is not bad. Carey Elwes (who has done nothing I liked since Mel Brookes' Robin Hood: Men in Tights) can't really hold up to being on screen as long as he is but Leigh Whannell (also a co-writer) was very good.
It was depressing to see where Danny Glover has gotten to and the movie was gorier than it was scary, the pseudo-villain was pretty banal and the real villain was as ethereal as to me non-frightening. Still James Wan and his buddy Whannell had one good idea and a few other ideas to back it up. They were obviously given a decent budget and they equally obviously didn't really care.The non-linear story telling was more than a waste of time and on several occasions it was difficult to tell where the movie was (did this action happen in the past?). Movies like Pulp Fiction demonstrated the benefits of non-linear (split narrative) story-telling and Saw showed us it can fail.
Mostly this movie bothered me because these guys didn't care. They didn't care about little things like making certain that the background in the Polaroid showing the kidnapped wife and kid was the same background that the wife and kid were in front of. They didn't care that two guys with more than six hours on their hands could, in fact, hacksaw through a piece of non-galvanized three inch chain. They didn't care that you can not just send electricity through any conduit and have those attached to it get zapped or that a doctor standing a few feet from a guy for six hours or more might notice that he is breathing.
I like the horror genre and have seen some absolutely awful horror movies. Movies that make Saw look like a masterpiece. What I hate, however, is that this movie was all about getting us to see the movie using scenes that worked well for 30 second commercials and not a care was given as to whether anyone would like it post viewing. There was no deep pride in this movie. It started as a cool idea and got no further. No one put any heart and soul into it and no one thought of hiring anyone to make certain that it made sense.
This kind of thing has been getting worse and worse since, say Basic Instinct, when Nick Curran (Michael Douglas) is accused of shooting a woman with a 9mm pistol and is asked by the chief of police to hand over his own. Curran's weapon is a .38 Caliber revolver but the chief of police smells it anyway to make certain it has not been fired even though the bullet that was recovered from the girl could not possibly have come from that gun.
I know, the problem started before then but it is getting worse. While more and more drivel is hitting the theatres less and less time is being taken to make certain that things are right. I mean, why bother? The audience will be packed with teenagers who want to be scared; all we need to do is scare them. Two options: gross them out or have things appear suddenly. Suspense? What? No. That Amityville stuff is too risky. Too difficult to make work.
I have no problem with gross and shocking. If Hollywood is unable to find the talent to make a really scary movie that is fine. Gross me out and scare me. But don't insult my intelligence. Get some continuity experts. If you are using science, get a science guy. Hell, get a grade twelve physics major who will work for free if you let him watch the nude scenes. I am not looking for high drama and fine acting here but at least make the integrity of your work be relative to your budget and projected box office sales and stop saying, like I know you do "No one will notice that anyway. Just leave it in."
Comments:
Post a Comment
