Daybreakers -- Michael and Peter Spierig
I won't say I didn't have any expectations for Daybreakers except to be dismissive because it has all the hallmarks of modern horror fare (this was released in early 2010). Blue filters. Heavily processed in post. Loud, pulsing, unsubtle music. I'm not really sure how it ended up on my queue to begin with. But it's here, so let's get on with it.
Daybreakers is pretty rad! It combines several old ideas with some new ones that totally work. The world is roughly 95% vampire (I Am Legend), the human blood supply is running out and our hero, Ethan Hawke, is trying to make a synthetic blood (True Blood). I don't know if they tried animal blood, but I can only assume it didn't work out. When vampires don't get enough blood, they start to devolve into vicious bat-like humanoids. Hawke saves several human lives and winds up on the run from... the government? I don't know who is pursuing him, but they are armed and crave blood. He's a friend to the humans and meets Willem DaFoe, who will always be "Gas" (eXistenZ spoilers in that link) to me, who was cured of his vampirism in a baptism by sun-fire.
The first thing to appreciate is that it's rated R. You better have a damn good yarn if your horror movie isn't rate R this day and age. Unfortunately, some of this comes with some really crappy CG gore, but it looks like the Spierig brothers were keen on practical effects, too. Lots of Karo syrup flies along with the ones and zeros. There's even a bit of (not titillating) nudity just in case sensors deem violence even more acceptable than it already is because those boobs, they'll scar you.
I also dig that while they hint at a love story for a moment, it never goes anywhere. Seriously, there are so many movies with sex scenes that happen while the world is falling apart around them. But I guess they gotta do it in case they don't make it out of this mess alive.
The Spierig brothers also assemble a lively car chase (I'm a sucker for those) with no shortage of humor (except they get the angle of the sun wrong, which will make sense if you watch to movie) and a finale that calls to mind Cabin in the Woods (but was obviously in no way influenced by it or vice versa).
The few missteps were that I wish the relationship between the normal vampires and the devolved was examined more. There's a great early scene in Hawke's house that feels the devolved will play a big role in the climax. There's no real sense of people being afraid of what they will become without blood, either. I thought that would be a great bargaining chip once the humans had their cure.
Daybreakers drags in the middle as Hawke meets the merry band of surviving humans and there's a subplot with Sam Neill's daughter that is totally unnecessary. The dialogue is mostly perfunctory (on the writers' part, the actors do with it what they can). Or maybe just utilitarian. Lots of exposition, little charm. At 98 minutes, I can't complain too much. The movie was very entertaining and I have no qualms recommending it
Showing posts with label sam neill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sam neill. Show all posts
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Monday, July 23, 2012
Empathy and Movies
I just returned from seeing Possession at my movie theater. It's an incredibly intense (and angry) movie that I've described as Cassevetes meets Lynch and a hyper-melodrama with supernatural elements as well as comparing it to Cronenberg's The Brood (for the anger) and Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut (for the dream/nightmare-like atmosphere)*. As you can imagine, Possession is very hard to describe and is vastly different than what the title suggests. Here's the trailer:
This is one of those movies that I can't say I enjoy, but I would recommend to any adventurous moviegoer. I've had a number of interesting conversations and it's the type of material that stays with you for a few days. The acting is pitched at near screeching levels and the entire world exists in a heightened reality that pushes the boundary of what the viewer expects from a night at the movie. It's these last elements that bring me to my discussion.
My theater is known for monthly kung fu features and monthly grindhouse shows. Possession was not shown under the heading of either of those yet the audience appears to have approached it this way. Much to my chagrin, many people come to those screenings looking to laugh at the movies and not enjoy them for what they are. At some point in movie history, people decided that bad movies could be fun if you watched them for the purpose of making fun of them (I would think Mystery Science Theater 3000 is the starting place, but I could be wrong). As someone who only seeks out movies that I think I might like (or seeks them out to have an educated opinion on something, say Woody Allen or Quentin Tarantino), I think this concept is a waste of time. There's are literally thousands of good to great movies to still be seen. Why waste time on the shitty ones?
Alas, this is the culture in which we live. What started out as mocking obviously bad movies developed into audiences thinking that public spaces were a fine place to practice their wit (note to movie theater wise-asses: you're not funny). Sadly, even though we show many terrific grindhouse films (I'm not much into kung fu, but I'm told they're good), the reputation for these types of films precedes them. Audiences enter the theater with no intention of taking the movie seriously. Not only are they doing the filmmaker a disservice, but themselves because they are putting a wall up that prevents them from having an actual experience. They have no capacity to empathize.
Which brings me back to Possession. I'll be the first to admit that there are bizarre and funny touches, intentional and unintentional, but every seen between Sam Neill and Isabelle Adjani is erupting with tension. I don't know how anyone could bring themselves to laugh while these character's lives are spiraling out of control along with their minds. Yet, the audience does, even during a scene in which Neill's character is beating Adjani's character. My mind was blown that people could find that funny**.
The great thing about Possession, though, which is unlike almost any other film, is that it punishes you for laughing. I don't mean to suggest it's doing this intentionally because I don't think the director, Andrzej Zulawski, expected people to laugh, but his film is so visceral and ratcheted up that he takes the viewer into uncomfortable territory. There are several scenes, including the beating, in which the audience initially saw humor but quickly became piped down. That was pleasing to see.
This experience made me realize that many of today's audiences come to watch movies with a chip on their shoulder. They go to movies on their terms, not the filmmaker's and the filmmakers have to work hard to get past the coating of snark and irony. It's disappointing that people can't let their guard down for new experiences and it's even more upsetting that their inability to keep it in the living room might ruin the experience for others. For many, unless there are massive explosions, the days of losing oneself in a movie are over.
*A coworker also posited that it's an alien invasion film, which is totally arguable.
**A friend suggested the laughter was nervous laughter, but much of it seemed more like belly laughs and not awkward titters to me.
This is one of those movies that I can't say I enjoy, but I would recommend to any adventurous moviegoer. I've had a number of interesting conversations and it's the type of material that stays with you for a few days. The acting is pitched at near screeching levels and the entire world exists in a heightened reality that pushes the boundary of what the viewer expects from a night at the movie. It's these last elements that bring me to my discussion.
My theater is known for monthly kung fu features and monthly grindhouse shows. Possession was not shown under the heading of either of those yet the audience appears to have approached it this way. Much to my chagrin, many people come to those screenings looking to laugh at the movies and not enjoy them for what they are. At some point in movie history, people decided that bad movies could be fun if you watched them for the purpose of making fun of them (I would think Mystery Science Theater 3000 is the starting place, but I could be wrong). As someone who only seeks out movies that I think I might like (or seeks them out to have an educated opinion on something, say Woody Allen or Quentin Tarantino), I think this concept is a waste of time. There's are literally thousands of good to great movies to still be seen. Why waste time on the shitty ones?
Alas, this is the culture in which we live. What started out as mocking obviously bad movies developed into audiences thinking that public spaces were a fine place to practice their wit (note to movie theater wise-asses: you're not funny). Sadly, even though we show many terrific grindhouse films (I'm not much into kung fu, but I'm told they're good), the reputation for these types of films precedes them. Audiences enter the theater with no intention of taking the movie seriously. Not only are they doing the filmmaker a disservice, but themselves because they are putting a wall up that prevents them from having an actual experience. They have no capacity to empathize.
Which brings me back to Possession. I'll be the first to admit that there are bizarre and funny touches, intentional and unintentional, but every seen between Sam Neill and Isabelle Adjani is erupting with tension. I don't know how anyone could bring themselves to laugh while these character's lives are spiraling out of control along with their minds. Yet, the audience does, even during a scene in which Neill's character is beating Adjani's character. My mind was blown that people could find that funny**.
The great thing about Possession, though, which is unlike almost any other film, is that it punishes you for laughing. I don't mean to suggest it's doing this intentionally because I don't think the director, Andrzej Zulawski, expected people to laugh, but his film is so visceral and ratcheted up that he takes the viewer into uncomfortable territory. There are several scenes, including the beating, in which the audience initially saw humor but quickly became piped down. That was pleasing to see.
This experience made me realize that many of today's audiences come to watch movies with a chip on their shoulder. They go to movies on their terms, not the filmmaker's and the filmmakers have to work hard to get past the coating of snark and irony. It's disappointing that people can't let their guard down for new experiences and it's even more upsetting that their inability to keep it in the living room might ruin the experience for others. For many, unless there are massive explosions, the days of losing oneself in a movie are over.
*A coworker also posited that it's an alien invasion film, which is totally arguable.
**A friend suggested the laughter was nervous laughter, but much of it seemed more like belly laughs and not awkward titters to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)