The Conjuring (2013)

Tags

Horror, Lili Taylor, Movie, Patrick Wilson, Ron Livingston, The Conjuring, Vera Farmiga

I know, you’re wondering why anyone would make such a creepy doll in the first place, right? Yeah, I get that a lot…

I wonder how much my ratings of horror movies depend on what time of day I see them.  I guess if I see one during the day – without the added atmosphere of the night – and it really affects me, that says a lot about how scary/good it was.

Well, I saw this one in the middle of the day, and it didn’t affect me much at all.  That’s not to say it’s a bad movie.  It’s pretty well done…but I’ve seen this well done stuff many times before.  It has most of the same cliches and plot contrivances that most in the genre have.

It looks good, sounds good, is reasonably well acted (particularly by some of the odd kids), and has a creepy moment or two.  Overall, though, it’s not one that will last with me.  It’s just too typical.

Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson are serviceable, Ron Livingston is…there, but it’s Lili Taylor that has to do all the heavy lifting once things start to go really crazy.  I guess the kids pull some weight too.  They have to make you believe they are terrified, and they do a good job.

I don’t have much else to say about this one.  I’ll leave it to Cinema Sins to point out all the little problems with it. It’s fun at times, but I wouldn’t say it was all that scary, and it didn’t leave much of an impression on me.

How about a little innovation in plots, movie makers?  Enough with the evil spirits that go bump, bump, bump in the night.  Enough with the put-upon mother who is always the object of torment.  Enough with the creepy kids.  Enough with the experts setting up cameras and other ghost hunter equipment.

I think horror writers should start with a list of things (see above) that can NOT appear in their story, then start building a plot.  Maybe then we can see something new…

6.5/10

Source Code (2011)

Tags

Action, Drama, Jake Gyllenhaal, Jeffrey Wright, Michael Arden, Michelle Monaghan, Movie, Science Fiction, Source Code, Vera Farmiga

have you met my friend Frank?

PG-13

Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga, Jeffrey Wright, Michael Arden

Dr. Rutledge:  You know, many soldiers would find this preferable to death. The opportunity to continue serving their country.
Colter:  Have you… have you spent much time in battle, sir? Huh?
Dr. Rutledge:  That’s immaterial.
Colter:  Any soldier I’ve ever served with would say that one death is service enough.

It’s complicated…

A U.S. army helicopter pilot, Colter Stephens (Gyllenhaal), is tasked with discovering the identity of a terrorist bomber in the last 8 minutes before the bomb goes off in a commuter train.  The thing is, the bomb has already gone off.  Through a convoluted scientific process, Colter’s mind has been connected to the mind of a passenger that was on board the train.  He can relive the final 8 minutes over and over again until he figures out who the bomber was, hopefully preventing further bombings in the city.

Ya know, I really liked Duncan Jones’ first movie, Moon, and some aspects of Source Code are good, but it just doesn’t quite achieve what it seems to be shooting for.

The best way I can describe this one is Groundhog Day meets 12 Monkeys.  There is the similar theme of a person being sent seemingly through time (or perhaps not?) by scientists to gather information concerning the identity of a terrorist.  That’s the 12 Monkeys connection.  As for Groundhog Day, well, poor Colter Stephens is having to relive the same 8 minutes over and over again until he can accomplish his mission.

But there is more to the story than that.  Just like in Moon, not all is what it seems, and the major plot twist in this one does provide for some added emotional content.  Unfortunately, I think the story does get a little derailed (pun intended) by the wishy-washy scientific mumbo-jumbo.  They either needed to go all out with the scientific explanations or just leave it all completely mysterious.  The amount of info given is just enough to confuse and raise more questions without really answering many of them.

I do like how Jones does not see a need to end his movies with big action pieces or huge dramatic turns.  He seems to want to go for more of an emotional payoff rather than just spectacle.  Again though, this one missed the target a little bit for me.  I thought it was going to be really moving, but then boom, it got a little too sappy.  Plus, there’s one glaring oversight that I can’t really discuss – too spoileriffic – that left me saying, “but wait a second!  What about…?”

Actually, tell ya what…for those that have seen the movie, just highlight the white text in the blank area below to see what my beef was.  Am I wrong here??

***Spoilers***
At the end, when Colter saves the day and changes everything, his mind seems to be left in that other guy’s body…but what happened to the other guy’s consciousness??  Not such a happy ever after ending for him, eh?  One day he’s riding along on a train and then suddenly he doesn’t exist anymore.  That was a major distraction for me personally.
***End Spoilers***

Okay, back to visible text.

There are definitely some good moments here.  I liked Gyllenhaal’s performance, going from confusion to anger and then to calm determination, and I like Duncan Jones’ style.  He doesn’t need to use the Tony Scott style of hyper-editing, which is refreshing.  Seriously, I’m not sure there was even one helicopter in this movie.  Though, Colter was a helicopter pilot.  Think that was a little dig at Tony Scott’s overuse of helicopters in his train movie?

The silliness/convolution of the plot plus the disappointing last few minutes drop this one down a level below Moon, but I’m still looking forward to future projects from Duncan Jones.  He seems to understand that characters and emotions can be even more dramatically interesting than explosions and car chases.  And that movies about trains don’t need a bunch of helicopters flying around…

Racial profiling doesn’t work so well.

10 – 1.1 for a disappointing ending – 2 because it’s a little too repetitive and convoluted, plot-wise = 6.9

Up in the Air (2009)

Tags

Anna Kendrick, Comedy, Drama, George Clooney, Jason Bateman, Movie, Romance, Up in the Air, Vera Farmiga

hahahaha...sorry, it's just funny to say...Farmiga! ahahahahaha

R

George Clooney, Anna Kendrick, Vera Farmiga, Jason Bateman

Alex: I’m a sucker for simulated hospitality.

Ryan Bingham (Clooney) spends most of his life flying from city to city, firing people for companies who, as Ryan says…well, aren’t brave enough to do it themselves.  When his loner lifestyle is threatened by new technology that won’t require him to fire people face to face, Ryan takes the young developer of this technology, Natalie (Kendrick), on the road with him.

Finally a movie that lived up to the hype.

There’s nothing much new about the idea of a character that lives an isolated life, devoid of any deep, solid relationships having their life invaded by somebody who breaks down their walls and shows them that there’s some worth in close relationships.  But, if you take a familiar story, tell it well, and throw in a bit of a twist on it, you can have yourself a fine little movie.

It also helps if you can get good performances from the actors involved, and that’s the case across the board here.  Clooney and Farmiga are particularly good, but Kendrick holds her own with them too.  Bateman’s not doing anything he hasn’t done before, but he’s funny and likable as always.  Then there’s the myriad of other small parts featuring people like J.K. Simmons, Zach Galifianakis, Melanie Lynskey, Sam Elliot, and Danny McBride.  They’re all good.

The more I think about this movie, the more I’m torn on which character’s line of thinking I’m in agreement with.  Obviously having close relationships is important, but the hypothetical backpack (which contains the weight of all your possessions and relationships) Ryan keeps referring to is awfully tempting to lay aside at times.  It can weigh you down.  Ryan’s main goal in life is acquiring frequent flier miles.  For him, moving is living.  Even if he’s not moving towards any destination in particular.  As he grows closer to Alex (Farmiga), a woman he meets in an airport, you start to see a possible desire to maybe grow roots.  Maybe.  But by the end…well, as I said, I left being a bit torn…

This and Juno are the only movies I’ve seen that were directed by Jason Reitman (still need to see Thank You for Smoking), but I’m fast becoming a fan of his style.  It’s fun and creative and amusing without being overbearing or cutesy.  The editing, direction, and music add nice touches to both Juno and Up in the Air, but Reitman lets the actors carry both films.

It’s odd to leave a film feeling both depressed and simultaneously uplifted, but that’s how I felt after this one.  I think that’s another sign of a good movie.  It doesn’t tie everything up neatly with a bow on top, and it leaves you with questions on your mind.  Sort of like how the various characters we see getting fired leave their meeting feeling.  Depressed, wondering what’s next, but maybe also feeling some hope for a new beginning.

When going through airport security, always get behind the Asian people.

10 – .5 because yeah, the lonely isolated guy thing is not that original a concept – .6 for a little bit of a slow beginning = 8.9

Orphan (2009)

Tags

Drama, Horror, Isabelle Fuhrman, Movie, Orphan, Peter Sarsgaard, Vera Farmiga

don't paint the camera, honey.

R

Vera Farmiga, Peter Sarsgaard, Isabelle Fuhrman

John: Look at the snow orphan!
Kate: Snow orphan??
John: …Snorphan?

A couple, John (Sarsgaard) and Kate (Farmiga), with two kids of their own decide to adopt another child, Esther (Fuhrman).  She seems perfect…at first!  Soon, bad things start to happen around the house, and Kate is convinced Esther is to blame.  Convincing her husband, or anybody else, of this turns out to be a problem.

Didn’t I just see this movie recently?  And wasn’t it called Joshua?  Okay, so they’re not the same exactly, but the similarities are many.  You’ve got your scary piano-playing kid, of course, trying to drive apart his or her parents.  There’s a mother whose credibility is called into question because of a past mental problem in one movie and a past drinking problem in the other movie.  Oh, and both mothers are played by the same actress, Vera Farmiga.  I guess she just has that tormented-by-a-child look to her.  I must admit, she’s good at it.

The acting is good across the board in the movie, actually.  Sarsgaard is always dependable (though, his drunken crying was borderline embarrassing) and Fuhrman is convincingly evil as Esther.  I thought the kid in Joshua was mean, but he’d run screaming from Esther.  You do not want to do anything that will get that evil stare of hers cast your direction.  I thought the youngest child, Max, was well played by newcomer Aryana Engineer.  She’s hearing impaired (in the movie and real life apparently) and never says a word, but she communicates a lot with her expressions.

As for the plot, it’s nothing much new, but it’s kind of like a roller-coaster ride.  Not so much because it’s fast paced, but because you can see exactly where it’s going, yet still enjoy the ride.  It’s still too reliant on jump-scares and loud music hits, but there is enough uneasiness created to make the movie effectively creepy.  Esther’s hidden drawings were an especially nice touch.

It’s a little overlong, but it kept my attention for the most part.  I just wish they’d taken the characters in a few more original directions.  Though I will say one scene near the end shocked me a little bit.  Unfortunately the rest of the ending was just a mindless slasher, chase sequence with all the usual horror movie cliches.

Background checks, people…thorough background checks…

10 – 2.5 for unoriginality and predictability + .2 for Farmiga’s performance – .7 for being a little overlong = 7.0

Joshua (2007)

Tags

Drama, Jacob Kogan, Joshua, Movie, Sam Rockwell, Suspense, Vera Farmiga

how could somebody with such a sweet haircut be so evil??

R

Sam Rockwell, Vera Farmiga, Jacob Kogan

Chester: Don’t you know you never beat up your kid in public on the weekend!?

Brad (Rockwell) and Abby (Farmiga) have just had a new daughter, Lily, and their young son, Joshua (Kogan) begins acting strange.  Very strange.  Evil strange.

This is an interesting movie in that it leaves you to make up your own mind as to whether little Joshua is some sort of supernatural satanic devil child, or if he’s just a really smart, mean kid who is jealous of the attention this new baby in the house is getting.  In some ways it would be more comforting if his eyes were red and he had some crazy powers or something, but none of that happens.  He just gradually drives his family apart using psychological means.  I find that much more unsettling.

Jacob Kogan definitely does a good job of making the audience feel uneasy with the inflection of his voice and the subtle, conniving looks he gives.  Sam Rockwell is good, as always, and even brings a few moments of comedy to the movie.  It’s not easy to interject lighthearted moments into a serious movie, but if anybody can do it, it’s Sam Rockwell.

I also have to mention that Vera Farmiga is very good as Abby, Joshua’s poor mother.  She was driven nearly crazy (literally) by Joshua’s constant crying when he was a baby, but she loves how quiet and peaceful Lily is.  That is, until one night she mysteriously starts crying and doesn’t stop for days and days.  Does Joshua have something to do with this?  Hmmm.  Farmiga was convincing going from anger to attempts at motherly love and then, finally, insanity.

The movie is not without its faults though.  The segment with little Lily’s constant crying had the same affect on me as it did on Abby.  Well, maybe not as severely, but I still felt like that section of the movie dragged on a bit too long.  As did the movie as a whole.  Plus, there’s a critical plot point that I found frustrating.  I won’t reveal too much about it, but I’ll just say that there’s an obvious piece of evidence that could be used by Brad to prove that Joshua is up to something, but he never even brings it up.  That annoyed me.

Overall, though, it looks good, is acted well, and has a creepy atmosphere throughout (especially the eerie piano recital scene where Joshua plays a warped version of Twinkle Twinkle Little Star), even if the final scene is more just plain strange than creepy.

I think it’s pretty obvious:  don’t have kids.

10 – 1.1 for dragging at times – 1.5 for some inexplicable character behavior – .6 for an underwhelming finale = 6.8