Fright Night 3D

OPENING: 08/19/2011

STUDIO: Dreamworks Studios

RUN TIME: 106 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
You can’t run from evil when it lives next door

Opening Statement
Fright Night 3D is one of those horror remakes that probably didn’t need to happen. Regardless, it’s fun, creepy motion picture entertainment boasting a strong performance from Colin Farrell and some fairly nifty special FX. The 3D ain’t bad either.

Facts of the Case
Charlie Brewster (Anton Yelchin) lives with his mother (Toni Collette) in a quiet suburban town just outside Las Vegas. Seemingly on the verge of escaping his geaked-out past playing superheroes with the school nerd (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), and preparing to dive head first into his red hot girlfriend’s (Imogen Poots) pants, Charlie’s life takes an unexpected detour when Jerry (Farrell) moves in next door and turns out to be, of all things, a vampire.

Charlie must enlist the aid of crazy magician Peter Vincent (David Tennant) in order to ensure his friends survive the blood sucker’s wrath.

The Evidence
Fright Night 3D taught me many things. One, that Hollywood will never grow tired producing vampire flicks, regardless of box office. Two, actor Anton Yelchin must know somebody fairly high up, hence Hollywood’s insistence on throwing him into every high caliber, potential blockbuster series, despite his obvious lack of cinematic presence. And three, Colin Farrell should’ve been on the A-list many years ago.

The talented veteran has retreated to starring in many little-seen films, namely the terrific In Bruges and London Boulevard, after flopping in early attempts to attain leading man status – see American Outlaws, Hart’s War, The Recruit, and Daredevil. Fright Night 3D gives him the freedom to play loosey goosey in a throwaway roll (reminiscent of his early bit in Steven Spielberg’s Minority Report), mainly because there’s not much else to the production. It’s as if the producers knew a remake of Tom Holland’s nifty 1985 cult classic was a bad idea, but realized Farrell was in it for more than just the paycheck and decided to let him run away with the show.

Good move.

Farrell instills life into an otherwise stilted film. His performance, comprised of slight twitches and snakely motions that even Voldemort would envy, carries Fright Night 3D above the annals of average cinema into a chasm above decent and below “actually quite good.” I was reminded of Heath Ledger’s Joker from The Dark Knight, and Johnny Depp’s Jack Sparrow in the first Pirates film (remember, when he was actually cool?). It’s one of those performances that can turn an average film into a good one, or a good film into a great one. Without him, Fright Night 3D would line Target discount shelves for years to come. With him, the damned thing might just find redemption…time will tell.

Of course, that doesn’t excuse the remaining film. What is it about modern horror films that keeps them from being scary? Is it the CGI FX, which pale in comparison to those grotesque, imaginative schlocky ’80s make-up FX? Or the need to lean heavily on pop culture to connect with audiences (Twilight is mentioned several times)? Or is it the glossy look caked over the production, making everything too neat, too perfect? Tellingly, I didn’t mind some of the CGI in this film, and felt Craig Gillespie (Lars and the Real Girl) did a fairly good job with the gore. It’s still not utterly grotesque, but at least a few people in my audience expelled grossed out reactions to the proceedings. (Some of his scare tactics were quite effective as well.)

However, what bugs me about modern cinema is the digital look all films seem to carry. Remember the old days when films like Tobe Hooper’s Texas Chainsaw Massacre had dust particles splashed across its images? Remember the murky, unprofessional lighting in the original Friday the 13th? Hell, even Sam Raimi’s Evil Dead films, while inherently low budget (and cheesy), still scared the crap out of you with its muddy, over-the-top happenings.

Maybe the problem is that all films these days receive a budget north of $100 million. With that kind of money, directors don’t have to be creative (unless you’re James Cameron, and must make imaginative cuts in order to ensure your film comes within its $300 million price tag); they simply point and click. Thus each shot is carefully laid out; everything looks and feels artificial because the creativity that carried on behind the scenes lacked emotional investment. Imagine if Gillespie was told to remake Fright Night 3D on a $10 million budget. Don’t you think a better film would emerge? One filled to the brim with creativity?

That’s why films like Paranormal Activity and The Blair Witch Project work so well: they require imagination. Everything looks and feels low budget and so the audience is never sure how far the director can go. The scares stem from utter surprise at a director’s ability to achieve the impossible in a film that costs less than a pack of chewing gum. When a production carries an enormous price tag and throws buckets of CGI blood in your face, shock and awe go out the window. By then, it’s not a matter of what the producers can’t do, but what they won’t do.

Perhaps I’m just fickle. In truth, I enjoyed Fright Night 3D for its offbeat humor, and Poots’ dooey eyed charm. Yelchin bores me. And I’ve grown tired of Mintz-Plasse’s foul mouthed MacLovin charade. At least David Tennant injects some much needed energy into the film’s latter half, even if he comes across as a bit too eager for laughs.

In truth, remakes never are necessary unless you can add something to counter the original (see True Grit). Fright Night circa 1985 never was a perennial classic, per se, but it was one hell of a freaky movie; one that gave me nightmares as a kid. Fright Night 3D won’t give you nightmares, but Farrell’s performance will give you chills.

Closing Statement
With Colin Farrell in fine form, Fright Night 3D becomes watchable horror fluff, even if it never truly frightens.

The Verdict
7/10

The Way Back

OPENING: 1/21/2011

STUDIO: Exclusive Films

RUN TIME: 133m

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Their escape was just the beginning

Opening Statement
From long time established director Peter Weir comes The Way Back, the story of gulag escapees whose goal is to walk to freedom. While this film isn’t as well constructed as some of Weir’s other works (e.g. Witness, The Truman Show), The Way Back holds it own in the escape-from-jail genre of films. The film could have been tighter and even better written at times, but still manages to entertain to the end.

Facts of the Case
Polish resident Janusz is accused of spying against the communist Soviet Union and Stalin’s regime. After refusing to sign a confession, he is sent to a Soviet labor camp where he is to serve the next twenty years of his life. Janusz quickly learns that no man can survive twenty years in such a camp and immediately befriends other inmates with a plan to escape. During the most furious of winter storms, a group of seven break free and head into the mountains, thus beginning the harrowing 4,000 mile journey from Siberia to India.

The Evidence
Unlike the classic The Great Escape, a film which focuses more on the actual escape from a WWII prison camp, The Way Back, on the other hand, spends little time in the prison and spends the great majority of the film on the journey. The amount of time spent in the camp is simply enough to introduce characters and show the viewers ample reason why the convicted wish to escape. The prisoners sleep several to a bunk, get very little food, and work in the most extreme conditions during a harsh Siberian winter. Those who resist working in the outdoor climates are subject to the mines, which is a hell with dangers of its own. The main character, Janusz, can see quite clearly that life inside the gulag is no life at all. With inmates dying right and left, Janusz must find a way out if he is to survive to see his wife again.

“Nature is your jailer and she is without mercy.”

These words, spoken by the Soviet officer greeting the new inmates, are a verbal warning should they even try to escape, Mother Nature will undoubtedly take each of them down. With literally hundreds of miles of forest in every direction, the survival rate for escapees is zero. Weir does a masterful job of showing the brutality of winter in Siberia. Food is almost nonexistent and every day brings new challenges as the inmates walk in the same direction, hoping to reach some sort of freedom. Weir brilliantly juxtaposes the beauty of the untouched forest against the relentless winter conditions. Overhead camera shots give the forest a feeling of claustrophobia, with trees spaced only feet apart for miles in any direction. The camera might linger over a hill only to see a seemingly endless range of mountains in the distance.

After the survivors reach the southern tip of the Siberian wilderness, the landscape changes considerably and within a relatively short distance they find themselves on the edge of the Gobi Desert. The desert brings new challenges to the remaining group and death quickly becomes the more pleasurable alternative to those whose hope has completely diminished. With countless, enormous sand dunes rivaling that of Tatooine, the escapees walk day after day, night after night, with little to drink and even less to eat. Weir spends half of the film in the desert, and although we better understand this excruciatingly arduous part of the journey for the travelers, I found this to be where the film itself began to drag. At some point, the long distance shots of people walking across the desert became tedious and the film could have benefited from more footage showing the toll that the desert takes on the human body. This is touched on briefly, but more of this would alleviate the need for so many walking shots. During one of these walking shots, a glaring continuity error fills the screen, catching the attention of both my wife and me. Thankfully, the picture eventually reaches its climax and ties itself up rather quickly, almost too quickly, with survivors immediately disappearing from the story simply to focus on Janusz’ original plight.

A few choices in the screenplay could have used better explanation; one scene which struck me as rather sloppy involved the group as they walked along the edge of Baikal Lake. For some unclear reason, the group decides that they must swim across a section of the lake, which is visibly frozen in parts. Weir never established why the group must swim across the near freezing water instead of walking around the lake as they had been doing. In fact, the distance they do maneuver across is quite short, so not going around this section of the lake seems highly illogical on the part of the characters. Another unexplained goal is why the journeymen insist on getting to India, instead of hopping on the Trans-Siberian railroad heading east. Possibly, the railway is too heavily patrolled by invading forces, but that is never explained and with the great distances they have already hiked, hitching a ride on a train, even if for fifty miles, would prove to be quite a relief.

The Way Back is loosely based on The Long Walk, a book by Slawomir Rawicz chronicling his 4,000 mile walk after escaping prison. This story, although selling a half a million copies, has since been debunked on several levels and is questioned as to its truthfulness in storytelling. While stretching the truth has very often provided for great storytelling, that doesn’t excuse Weir from making the film as air-tight as possible.

Closing Statement
In the end, The Way Back is an entertaining film, but not as well constructed as it could have been. The long 132 minute running time becomes quite evident in the second half and with a tighter section in the desert, it might have been more satisfying. Still, Peter Weir has a knack for photographing the beauty in nature’s many landscapes, even when those same landscapes bring death to those who can’t overcome its indifference toward human life.

The Verdict

6/10

Crazy Heart

OPENING: Limited Release

STUDIO: Fox Searchlight

RUN TIME: 112 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
The harder the life, the sweeter the song.

Opening Statement
Crazy Heart is a simple, straightforward story without a lot of surprises. It’s the sort of story we’ve seen before, but told in such a tender and thoughtful manner it somehow manages to completely transcend the conventions of its structure.

Facts of the Case
Jeff Bridges (The Big Lebowski) plays Bad Blake, a 57-year-old country singer whose glory days are far behind him. Once upon a time, Bad was a pretty big star, but alcoholism and poor decision-making have left him in a rough state. These days, he does what he can to get by, playing unimpressive venues like bars and bowling alleys. One day, a reporter named Jean Craddock (Maggie Gyllenhaal, Stranger Than Fiction) drops by Bad’s hotel room to conduct an interview. The two hit it off and Maggie ends up spending the night. She thinks it’s just a one-night stand, but Bad finds himself emotionally attached. He wants to get to know Maggie better, and spend time getting to know her 4-year-old son. Maggie likes Bad, but knows he’s a mess and might be beyond redemption. Meanwhile, Bad’s ultra-popular protege, Tommy Sweet (Colin Farrell, In Bruges), attempts to help his old mentor re-enter the music world.

The Evidence
Bad Blake may be a fictional character, but his story certainly has more than a ring of truth to it. Plenty of celebrities have been in Bad’s shoes. Once famous, they wasted opportunities in the spotlight and will take whatever they can to cover the rent and their addiction of choice. Bad is the sort of guy country music singers tend to sing about: his wife done left, he ain’t got many friends, just a beat-up truck and a near-empty bottle. There are more than a few echoes of The Wrestler‘s "Randy the Ram" in Bad.

In that film, Mickey Rourke played a character which seemed a logical choice for the actor. To a degree, Randy was a variation on Rourke’s own life. In Crazy Heart, Jeff Bridges turns in a performance every bit as moving and convincing, though I imagine there’s very little of the real-life Bridges to be found in this character. I’m glad Jeff is finally getting some attention for his performance, because he has been a tremendously under-appreciated actor over the course of his career. Jeff has a way of fully inhabiting the characters he plays, and within the first few minutes of Crazy Heart we completely forget that he was Starman, The Dude, and Obadiah Stane. I stopped seeing the actor and started seeing Bad Blake. It’s not a flashy performance. Jeff doesn’t have any of those award-bait moments in which he shouts out an impassioned monologue. He just makes creating a fully-realized, lived-in character seem deceptively easy.

The screenplay, written by director Scott Cooper (based on the novel by Thomas Cobb), is similarly impressive in an understated way, quietly slipping in sincere and truthful dialogue. The lines are so natural and underplayed, it may take a while to realize just how truly magnificent they are. There’s a moment when Jean asks Bad what he wants to talk about in the interview. "I want to talk about how bad you make this room look," he sighs wearily. These exchanges were undoubtedly constructed with precision and care, but the ensemble makes all of them feel organic.

Speaking of which, praise deserves to be showered on the supporting cast. Maggie Gyllenhaal is one of the most reliably engaging actresses of her generation, nailing the complicated blend of protectiveness she feels for her son and affection she feels towards Bad. Her quiet moments with Bridges are some of the strongest scenes in the film. Robert Duvall (who starred in the very similar Tender Mercies back in 1983) is excellent as one of Bad’s few remaining friends, while Colin Farrell proves surprisingly convincing as a country megastar who has a very complicated relationship with Bad. The protege has eclipsed the mentor, and Farrell successfully captures the awkward sense of guilt that comes with it.

I’m not really a fan of country music, but the songs in Crazy Heart (written by T. Bone Burnett and Stephen Bruton) are nothing short of excellent. They’re as quietly profound as the screenplay, offering genuinely affecting lyrics and memorably bittersweet melodies. The music ebbs and flows through the film, wrapping itself around the story and deeply enriching it. I expect a higher percentage of the audience will sit through the credits than usual, just to hear some of these tunes again. Bridges and Farrell both perform their numbers and do a genuinely impressive job, vastly better than the majority of what’s passing for country music these days.

Closing Statement
Crazy Heart is one of the great films of 2009, a quiet, beautiful story featuring a genuinely remarkable performance and excellent music. If you fail to see it, you are robbing yourself of a tremendously rewarding experience. Highly recommended.

The Verdict
10/10