What an absolutely frustrating film. I so wanted to like this, I didn't want to believe all of the bad reviews I saw, I wanted to believe in the good ones. It's hard, as a film goer, not to suffer a little anxiety when going in to see a film from a director whose work you like so much. This is especially true when the reviews are either of the ***.5 or * variety, with nothing in the middle. But I'm getting ahead of myself. We need to back up a bit before we can go forward.
It all began back in 1999 with a little film called The Sixth Sense. It was a phenomenon that sprung creepy kids back into the spotlight. Not to mention being an intelligently written, and acted film that stood up under scrutiny after discovering the twist. Then in 2000 he struck again, this time redefining the superhero film with Unbreakable. Move ahead a little more to 2002 and we get a new take on the alien invasion story with Signs. Now, in 2004 we get, I guess, a new fairy tale. Unfortunately, it is not nearly as successful in execution as the previous three.
It's hard to really talk about this film without giving away the twist. Of course, after knowing the twist, you'll wish you did so that you could have saved your time and money. There were a large number of things that I did like about the movie, but not enough to really recommend it. I guess I should start with some sort of plot description.
The story takes place at the turn of the century, in a village that is completely isolated from the outside world. The reason they are so isolated is because the entirety of the town is surrounded by woods that are inhabited by strange creatures called "Those We Do Not Speak Of." There is a truce between the villagers and these creatures not to trespass on each others lands, and that truce has lasted until now. Of course this leads to something happening that causes the break of the truce. The creatures start to enter the village, leaving warnings for those wishing to leave, in hopes of squashing an attempt to break the delicate balance that is in place.
There are points of the film that feel forced, as without certain things happening, there would be no story. And some of those things aren't the most logical occurrences to move the story along. I can almost see M. Night hunched over a laptop thinking, "How am I going to get this story moving?" A case of writer's block sets in until the light bulb goes on and out pops some nonsense onto the screen. I think this contributed to our ability to see through the plot rather early on, killing the overall suspense of the film. This leaves the weight of the suspense on the jump moments throughout the film, not so good to build overall tension, but sufficient to get a yelp from the crowd.
The film is rather dull at first, the story just meandering along trying to find its way. Then tragedy strikes and a crossroads comes up. To enter the woods, or not to enter the woods. That is the question. Obviously the answer is yes, the only way to help this event in the plot, of which I cannot speak of, requires a journey into the dark recesses of the monsters domain.
The character who is sent into those trees is none other than the blind daughter of the leading town elder, Ivy. Makes perfect sense right? Thought so, but the way the twists are revealed, it is the only way to reveal the twist, yet conclude the film with nothing really gained for the audience or the villagers. There is no resolution after the great reveal. The story is seriously lacking in any sort of development. This lack of development leads to some incredible leaps of logic, which are mind boggling to think and consider. Not to mention, I figured out what the twists were going to be very early on in the proceedings.
There are other problems too. The dialogue, for one, is awful, I mean, who talks like that? I can't even imagine the Amish speaking like this. Particularly amazing is that they talk like this despite what we learn in the big reveal. The dialogue is stilted, monotone, it lacks any type of warmth, it is just bad. The characters are all flat, none of them are terribly interesting. Joaquin Phoenix looks like he's sleepwalking. Ditto for William Hurt and Sigourney Weaver. Adrien Brody is another issue altogether, like he doesn't belong in this movie, and is there without any explanation. There is one exception to the flat characters and acting.
Bryce Dallas Howard, daughter of director Ron Howard, is Ivy Walker, the blind girl. She is the sole ray of light amongst the cast. She steals every scene she is in, and brings such a wonderful energy to her performance, which makes you want to like the whole so much more. She portrays a strong, confident, fearless young woman who is willing to put it all on the line for what she believes. She delivers the poor dialogue confidently, wanting you to believe it. A truly great performance, arguably Oscar worthy.
There are many things going for this movie. Besides the wonderful performance from Ms. Howard, there are some great moments between characters. While the characters themselves are terribly dull, there are times when they spark, not the romantic type mind you, just singularmoments that stand out. Moments like an encounter early on between Judy Greer's Kitty Walker and Joaquin Phoenix's Lucius Hunt. Another during Ivy's visit to Adrien Brody's Noah Percy. Even Sigourney Weaver and William Hurt have a nice moment together. It is sad that these moments couldn't develop into anything stronger.
Roger Deakins cinematography has moments of incredible beauty. There are some shots that are simply breathtaking, tracking shots through the woods, the play of light and shadow. It is just some fantastic work. It helps make this disappointing film, seem a bit better. In addition to that, the score from James Newton Howard is hauntingly beautiful. There are a lot of solo violin portions which help to create this eerie atmosphere. it is one of the better scores I have heard in the theater this year. These two elements, combined with M. Night's wonderful ability to squeeze as much tension out of the moment, to create some genuine jump moments throughout. Typically these are not always good to do, but these elements of look, sound, pace have combined to give a few good scares.
Like I said earlier, this film was terribly frustrating. There so many moments and portions that were great, but the weak dialogue, flat acting, and lack of a decent story kept flatlining any hope to wake up from this coma. M. Night Shyamalan is a very talented writer/director, maybe I was expecting too much from him. But actually believing that would be terribly unfair to me, someone who has proven their ability should be held to a higher standard. It is almost as if he was trading on his name to carry the movie. I don't want to believe that, I hope it was just an off day, so to speak. I hope he rebounds and knocks the next one out of the park. I was having a discussion about him earlier in the week, we were talking about whether or not Shyamalan is falling into a rut. It seems as if he discovered a formula and is just trying to milk it. So far his films are genre redefining pieces with some sort of twist incorporated into them, maybe it's time to change the formula. It may not be a bad idea for him to try something vastly different than what he has done in previously. Get away from having to incorporate some sort of twist. Maybe go back and do a sequel to Unbreakable, a film ripe with possibilities to continue the tale. This one came across as a poor man's Rod Serling, a bad Twilight Zone episode, if you will.
I guess I should wrap this up, I have given too much time to this. But I can't help thinking about how frustrating it was, for all those great moments, there was very little substance to it. At the same time it is not a complete waste, as there are some great moments to witness. But in the end, you will probably mutter to yourself on the way out "man, that was a stupid ending." I have kept this review to a minimum of potential spoilers for those who still wish to see it, and I do encourage it, don't take a lowly critics opinion, as we can't even agree on whether it's a good movie.
One more closing note, someone mentioned to me earlier today that "If you are intelligent, you will get this movie, and therefore think it is great. If you are not intelligent, therefore stupid, you will not get it, and therefore will hate the movie." I found the idea of this offensive and elitist on the part of whoever spoke it. Generalizations like that do not encourage any kind of conversation on the merits of the film. Based on that, I must be stupid, since I didn't like the film. So be it, who listens to critics anyway?
Very mild recommendation.
0 comments:
Post a Comment