Armageddon Review

 

        It’s November again, and slowly but surely, I’m getting old. Around this time is when I talk about the films that I liked the most. While you can say that sometimes in any month, I sprinkle in something that I like. Now, I’m going about it differently. Throughout the month, I’ll be talking about the films that I grew up with. Some of them were when my parents exposed them to me. And seeing them in an odd fashion. This is one of those of films. Specifically, this is the first time I talk about Michael Bay. 

1. Oil Drillers: Defenders of the Earth

        So, how did I get exposed to this film? Well, it was of all places, the National Geographic channel. They had a special documentary about movie science. They analyzed the movie science and tried to apply it to actual science. This specific one, looked at all the disaster movies and applied them to science to see if they were scientific. They weren’t but that’s not the point. One shot had a space shuttle fly into an asteroid and that looked cool. 

        Along with that shot, there was also this computer-generated shot of the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. They way it looked, had me so enthralled that I wanted to replay that so many times. Any explosion is worthy of the replay. I’m so glad that there’s the function on YouTube where you can manipulate the video. 

        Anyways, I’m rambling on explosions of all things. The film is very straightforward for a Michael Bay film. I’ll talk about him in a moment. An asteroid is barreling towards Earth in a span of two weeks. The head of NASA, Truman, finds a group of oil drillers led by Bruce Willis’ character to partake in this life-or-death situation. 

        Now reading that, you and I know that it sounds completely bonkers of a story. It can either be good, or really stupid. Like, if you really think about it. Why would NASA get oil drillers instead of actual astronauts? I’ll go off on this tangent when I talk about quite possibly the best audio commentary for the film. 

        It’s obvious that the film has problems. Scientific inaccuracies notwithstanding, the biggest problem is that the tone is all over the place. I feel that in one way that the film tries to take itself seriously given the situation at hand. In an odd way, the cast of oil drillers are the best and worst thing in the whole movie. The best thing about them is the whole chemistry. You believe that they are like close brothers and the camaraderie is second to none. 

        I think what makes them work is that they all have a distinct personality. While we don’t get scenes of them individually. Some of them we do, but I think it was just the billing of the actors. Ben Affleck gets the most screentime among the roughneck, and I don’t blame him since he was put there to counterbalance the level of machismo the film has got going for it. And that’s the reason why the film doesn’t work. 

        You have these moments of masculinity, romance, and science that it feels conflicting as hell. The whole film has these roughnecks doing all these crazy things. Like, the moments when NASA is figuring out the asteroid, it cuts to what’s going on in the oil rig Willis’ character is doing. Compounding it is Affleck having the hots for Liv Tyler’s character. I feel that she doesn’t really contribute much to the whole story but provides fodder when the whole mission goes south. 

2. Michael Bay

        You may have heard of the guy. I mean who hasn’t, he’s the only director that made explosions his whole career. Not to sell him short, but he did contribute to the action genre in the early 90s with the release of Bad Boys and The Rock. And you must keep in mind that disaster movies where everywhere in that time. It only made sense that Disney would give him a carte blanche and make his own disaster movie. 

        Having watch some of his movies stretching from his Transformers films to his lesser ones called The Island. The thing I notice about his films is just how the people are portrayed. It can literally be stereotypes and basic character tokens. It’s bad when if you have a background character act stereotypically black that it feels demeaning. Or having the only Russian character act belligerent when trying to fix the space shuttle. 

        It’s one thing to watch his movies, and it’s another when you get a headache. This film has so many cuts to different camera angles where my god it’s too much. The dialogue scenes too have this issue. Like when Willis’ character confronts Affleck’s about sleeping with his daughter. The whole moment is in the room and we cut back and forth to the characters with different angles, like I yearn for just a simple one take of dialogue with camera movement. 

        Instead, everything has to look cool for the sake of looking cool. Mission Control is all dark, which makes me think that they forgot to pay the light bill. The drillers can’t go using a standard astronaut suit, they have custom ones built that are a lot thinner than what we’re used to. It’s impractical and nonsensical since there’s a moment when they’re told to use an equipment for balance. And it’s not used, once. 

        Now, obviously what I’m writing is a take down of this movie. Although, what makes Michael Bay get away with it is that he shoots for the entertainment value. His movies are art in a technical sense. Camera and stunt work are all admirable when it doesn’t feel convoluted. Although the one thing he focuses on is the action and that’s his weakness. Character depth and good dialogue are all thrown out for the sake of looking cool. In his films, there’s nothing where you can pinpoint where it’s a movie that’s universally beloved. It has just one dedicated audience that loves the action, muscle and sometimes voyeur moments of the women. 

3. The Best Commentary You’ll Hear

        This part makes watching the movie worth it when hearing someone other than the director talking about it. In the DVD, Ben Affleck gives commentary on working on the film. And man, he doesn’t deserve to be as funny as he makes himself to be in the commentary. At times, he pokes holes at the overall story and delves into the mind of Bay. The best part is when he asks him why NASA needed oil drillers, which prompts Bay to tell him to shut the “f” up. 

4. Overall

        Armageddon is dated, bad even. It holds a place as a so bad it’s good since it has quality special effects and a good enough story. Bottom line, it’s a guilty pleasure.

Get Out Review

 

        Happy Halloween, as always its been a unique experience seeing just how much the genre has changed in 100 years. When you study this for a grade, you could care less since it robs the fun of enjoying something that basically will dictate if you pass or not. That’s why after the fact, it’s something to feel humbled when seeing something grow and see just how much thought and care went into making these movies. People write them off since they’re either scary or just rubbish. To me, that’s what movies is all about. With that, to wrap up this spooky venture, here’s what I think of Get Out. 

1. Something Liberally Wicked This Way Comes

        I will admit that I didn’t have faith in this movie when it came out back in 2017. In fact, I heard about it since one of my professors had tickets to the movie if anyone of my classmates was interested in an extra credit. To me, it didn’t make sense how a comedian could helm a horror movie, much less direct a movie. My first exposure to Jordan Peele was through the Comedy Central show Key and Peele. The sketches were funny, and it wasn’t until that some sketches had dark endings that maybe Peele had some talent.

        So anyways, when this movie made its debut, the praise it got was unfathomable. People were praising it left and right, just for its originality and its subtext. And to this day, I regret not watching it when it came out. Now, I can appreciate just how great of a debut it was. It’s up there in terms of laying the foundation of a future legendary director with a voice. Those are called auteurs and Jordan Peele is one. 

        Now, what the heck is this one even about? To put it simply, we follow Chris and his girlfriend Rose as they travel to her parent’s home. Everything seems normal enough, until Chris sees that the maids don’t appear to be normal. From then on, he gets involved with a crazy scheme that if you told this to a group of police detectives, they’ll laugh at you. And that’s exactly what happened in the movie. 

        The film has a great balance between being a comedy and a horror movie. Comedy to break the tension and to really put in a smart character who knows that everything he’s seeing is completely out of left field. It gives it a refreshing feel that he knows what’s happening and is willing to investigate as to what’s really going on. His friend Rod steals the show when he tries to help. Despite him being portrayed as silly, he’s smart and manages to fool one of the antagonists. 

        Another thing about this movie is its subtle commentary. Ostensibly, it’s poking fun at the white Americans who are unintentionally racist but try to mean well when talking to black people. At first the Armitage Family are seemingly polite as they are welcoming when Rose introduces Chris. It’s not until that when there’s a party and the whole attendants speak highly of African Americans, that it’s all a sinister front. 

        How I see it is that it’s all hypocritical. Not to give away too much in terms of what the Armitage’s are doing, but they want to transplant their secret society’s brains into randomized black people. You can interpret it another way, as to how White America has appropriated music, or much of anything from their culture. The best scene is when Chris gets hypnotized, it’s the film’s best shot since it has a unique way of showing his out of body experience. 

2. Comedy to Horror Pipeline

        This is something I noticed in terms of the director. And it’s surprising that some directors with comedic backgrounds can do a great horror movie. To me it’s always refreshing for someone to flex their chops into something that can play into a comedic moment. Think about it, when thinking of something funny, you would sometimes think of the most messed up hilariously thing that you laugh it off. To others, it’s downright horrific. 

        As far as I know, there have been other directors to lend their hand into horror. One is with John Landis who made the comedic classic Animal House. He went on to direct An American Werewolf in London, while there are comedic moments, it’s mostly a horror movie. And just this year, the movie Barbarian was helmed by Zach Creggar. You may not know him individually, but he was part of the comedic group The Whitest Kids U’ Know.

        Lastly, the main important key for these films to work is to balance between the horror and comedy. While there is a sub-genre called Comedic Horror, the main difference in that is that the overall event happening to the characters is either comedic or hilarious. And sometimes it can be hokey on purpose or to the detriment for the character. I bring this up since there was a movie last year called Malignant from James Wan. An icon in horror, but ultimately made a movie where it came off as schlocky but people and fans where up and arms in terms of how to judge the film. 

 

3. Overall

        Get Out is one of the best original horror films of the late 2010s. It’s subtext intertwines with the horror and makes us be weary of the people we meet. 

200th Review: 28 Days Later

 

        200 reviews, I can’t even believe it. It’s one thing to do this as a side, and to eloquently explain why a film works. My way of talking film has been a work in progress, at least trying explain through text as to what makes any film great and vice versa. A real tough ordeal since it’s a medium that needs a lot of visual help to show something significant. With that, I love sharing what I know and to expose people to movies from the past and seeing just how much has come in this medium. I feel that this endeavor adds to the ever-growing discussion of any movie. Instead of just saying it’s good and leave it to that. Regardless, here’s what I think with 28 Days Later. 

1. Making Zombies Cool Again

        Believe it or not, this is the first horror movie that I watched. Of all places, I was in San Antonio at my uncle’s house and he popped in the movie. Obviously, I wasn’t ready for what the whole film was going to be about. The thing that set my heart racing was the opening. It kick things off in terms of literally triggering what’s going on. 

        To give you guys a brief rundown, between the 80s and the 2000s, there wasn’t much for Zombies. It seemed that the sub-genre was dead, no pun intended, George Romero seemingly finished his trilogy of Dead movies. So, it was only natural that a new director would try something new to revitalize a sub-genre. Mostly, with any zombie movie, they rise from the dead and that’s usually about it. In this movie, it’s a bit different. This would be the second Danny Boyle movie that I talked about. The first being Steve Jobs from last year. From what I got in his movies is that he’s very kinetic with the story and the action always going on. It doesn’t feel convoluted or too fast, but quick enough to get to the point.  

        With that, the movie hits too close for home. A trio of pro-animal rights activists attempt to rescue chimps from being tested. Unbeknownst to them is that they were experimented on with a virus that was meant to end violence. Dubbed the Rage virus, one chimp attacks and inadvertently spreads the plague. We follow a patient named Jim, who wakes from a coma and realizes that the whole world changed. 

        From then on, he meets other survivors and tries to find refuge. The whole movie works on so many levels, I’m going to talk about some of them. The various shots of an empty London are impactful. You get to see just how much it feels eerie, no one’s there except the main guy. And I’m glad that it didn’t have zombies just roaming around. It keeps the tension in the film high, even when the characters are comfortable. One motif is those long shots when Jim looks small, I think it can be said that it’s the zombies that are looking at him.

        And that’s where the film works, it employs the Jaws way of making horror. We get very a limited amount of time of seeing the undead. When they show up, they amp up the tension since they can run. Sprinting is the thing that makes them formidable and the best scene that shows this is when the main cast is in a tunnel. They’re replacing a flat tire, and they can hear them. It’s Jaws-esque in a way where we don’t know when they’ll pop out. Not even a music cue for us when they show up. 

        Lastly, we see just how much devastation happens in a unique way. Buildings aren't in ruin, or any cars that are burnt that you might find in a post apocalyptic movie. What the film shows is an aftermath when society goes down. It's everyone looking out only after themselves in order to survive. Taking matters into their own hands when someone gets infected, and trying to gain their composure with something as desperate as that. 

2. Dehumanization

        Since the dead are robbed of any humanity, the same can be said for the survivors. Well specifically, Jim is the one to maintain his humanity but ultimately becomes the reluctant hero when he must rescue the other survivors. This bit of character development makes it way when Selena chastises him of not being the one to act. In one way, I didn’t expect Jim to become a super sleuth and set up the enemies to die from the Dead. He's active and tries to hide and almost acts like a dead person.

        This is the other theme about the film. As I mentioned earlier, it clashes with the survivors staying alive since they must look after themselves. The moment one of them gets infected, they drop any pretenses and choose to die. Those moments show us that anything can happen, and I was shocked when one of them gets infected since the character was a good father. It’s rather effective since we get to spend time with good characters, and it adds a shocked feeling. 

        I really don’t want to spoil this movie further since there’s another subplot when the survivors find a radio broadcast involving the military. Well, just to sprinkle in some sparse detail is that they aren’t what they seem. They have an ulterior motive that portrays them as dehumanizing. Hell, one of them wears a feminine apron when he’s cooking. 

        The only people that don't lose their humanity is when there's another character in jeopardy. With Jim making a daring rescue, Selena doesn't obey what the villains want her to do. While she makes some bold choices, she never loses her sanity but tries to remain composed. It shows us that the humans too can be as dehumanizing as the zombies. 

3. Overall

        28 Days Later is one of the best films of horror from the 2000s. It breath life to a seemingly gone genre where it reintroduced the dead to the pop culture once again. 

Misery Review

 

        The 90s can be seen as the either the near death and rebirth of the horror genre. Franchises that had multiple sequels in the prior decade was withering away in mediocrity. While Wes Craven can be credited for reviving the genre to new levels, Rob Reiner’s adaptation of Misery kicked off the decade and is considered one of the best Stephen King adaptations. 

1. Celebrity’s Worst Nightmare

        Like most things in my life, I was exposed to this movie via an episode of Family Guy. Misery was the second adaptation in the episode dedicated to King. It only makes sense to do a review of The Shawshank Redemption later down the line. Anyways, the film is basic in terms of overall story progression. 

        We follow Paul Sheldon, an accomplished writer known for writing his successful line of books about the character Misery. He suffers a car crash due to an out of nowhere snowstorm. Unbeknownst to him, he’s rescued by Annie, who promptly tells him that she’s a big fan of his work. I’ll talk about her in the next tab since she absolutely steals the show in the whole movie. 

        The film is like an heir apparent to an Alfred Hitchcock movie. It’s a thriller all the way, but it has that distinct level of horror that only Kathy Bates can pull off. The reason why the film works is that it’s like watching and waiting for the powder keg to blow up due to the main antagonist. Again, we will talk about her and what she represents in the overall movie. 

        What makes the film a great thriller is the overall location. Of all places it takes place in a small town in Colorado. Specifically, a small cabin house that is nowhere near civilization. It makes the situation even more dreadful, due in part that it seems that the main villain really thought every possible way to isolate herself. 

        James Caan does a good job of portraying the handicapped author. We understand his problem that he wants to try something different and shed his affiliation with his Misery titles. It makes him more relatable, considering that for someone that is creative wants to branch out. The best moment is when he tries to get on Annie’s good side, all the while trying ways to escape and becoming defensive. 

2. Annie Wilkes

        She absolutely deserved to win the Academy Award for Best Actress; Kathy Bates is probably the best performance for a Stephen King work. The best description to her is that she’s a ticking time bomb. Wilkes can border on being the sweetest person, due in part is that she’s a trained nurse and has appropriate bedside manners. Man, when she switches, it’s a terrifying thing. 

        Like I said earlier, the moments between her and Paul is an anxiety experience. We don’t know if she’ll switch or if Paul is doing enough to get the kind Wilkes to heal him. Additionally, she’s such a layered character where there’s moments where we feel sympathy for her. I think in one way it helps her become scarier since she can pull off the seemingly nice persona. A façade to let anyone’s guard down. 

        To me, she’s a perfect representation of the lament that most creatives go through. Especially the ones that have nutty fans. It’s that she’s a representation of brazen capitalism, and how she wants the only thing that she enjoys. The scene that best represents that is when she makes Paul burn a story that was supposed to be a new branch in his creativity. Which prompts Annie to force him to make a continuation of the thing that made him successful. In some way, the film is representative that King wanted to experiment with something else, even though the best thing about him is his work in horror. That’s besides the point. 

3. Overall

        Misery is one of the best Stephen King adaptations and the best horror-thrillers of the 90s.

Poltergeist (1982) Review

        The 80s will always be the prime example of being the only decade to start multiple horror franchises. Simply because it was easy and cheap to make. While it can be said that the downside is that the whole decade was inundated with sequels. There are the ones where it influenced the genre for years to come. This is where Poltergeist comes in. In my opinion, this is the best 80s horror movie, so far.

1. TV People

        So, you may ask what a Poltergeist is. Translated from German, it means a noisy spirit. To put it simply, it’s a kind of ghost where it makes interactions by moving stuff and its not tangible to see. Usually, this type of haunting is mostly associated with a specific person or to a specific location. Which works perfectly where the film takes place. 

        We follow the Freelings who are living peacefully in their new home in a new neighborhood. Their daughter Carol Anne communicates with something whenever the TV is static. However, the spirits become violent as they kidnap the young girl. We get a red herring when we see the dad and his friends watch a football game. And it’s smart to have the fake out when the real event starts to happen. 

        The film is a classic simply because what makes the film work is the entire family. All of them sell each other as one collective whole. It’s that level of chemistry where you feel like you’re watching a family. The real secret weapon for a film is to have all of them be likeable when you’re scared for them. Especially with Carol Anne, that moment when she gets sucked into the dimension is just sad. You feel for her when she screams and inevitable get sucked in. 

        Additionally, this is the first film that predates Ghostbusters by using investigators. This part makes the film way more grounded since there’s a level of science and research that tries to understand the paranormal. And that’s what the whole film is going for, this idea of understanding what happens after someone dies. It gives the study legitimacy when there’s reports of people experiencing a haunting. 

        With that out of the way, the ghosts amp up the horror to eleven. I’m glad that the actual reason for the haunting doesn’t tie into the Native American myth. The ways how the haunting is presented is imaginative and frightening. One thing I noticed is that parts of it feel mental. For instance, one of the investigators eats a chicken wing and notices a piece of meat moving. He runs to the sink since the food was covered in maggots. He proceeds to wash his mouth and his whole face tears off. 

        The special effects too are inventive. We see just how much torment the spirits give to the family. I’m always astonished when I see the characters dragged into the walls and being “fed” into the closet. Even though the set moves with the camera being still, its frightening and awe inspiring. And as I mentioned earlier, most of the frights are mental, while the special effects show the true power of The Beast demon. 

2. "Jaws" on Land

        This will always be a thing of debate in terms of who really directed this movie. While Steven Spielberg has his whole fingertips involved with this one, he’s not credited as a director. Tobe Hooper directed the movie, but it’s a sharp contrast with what he did prior. He made The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and when you look at these back to back, it’s clear that there’s a level of polish with this one that you expect it to be a Spielberg movie. 

        More so that the real antagonist in this movie is capitalism. Specifically, the nefarious business known as real estate. We see that the father Steven works with the real-estate firm that is expanding the neighborhood. And when he’s told that the graves are being moved, he puts it together that the bodies are tied to the land which explains the haunting. 

        In one way, this film is like the land version of Jaws. The family is terrorized by something that is only part of the environment. They hire investigators to deal and fight against the threat. I feel that this is the only way for the haunted house narrative to change. Since it’s mostly been the psychological aspect that mostly work. The film grounds itself to the concept that greed awakened the dead and they have come to terrorize the living as punishment. 

3. The Unnecessary Sequels

        Why there were sequels in the film I will never understand. It’s almost like a standard in Hollywood to make a sequel even if the overall story doesn’t warrant a continuation. From what I gathered; the sequels add on more to the spirits that haunted the family by tying them into a cult. And that the “Beast” demon is the leader of the cult who wants Carol Anne. 

        As always in the 21st century, it got a remake. The less we talk about that the better. If there’s one thing that I notice is that Craig T. Nelson did a great job as the father in the family. This is just speculation, but I’m pretty sure Brad Bird, who directed The Incredibles, wanted Nelson to be the father figure. He did a good job in both roles and I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the case. 

4. Overall

        Poltergeist was a game changing horror film when it came out in ’82. It’s worthy of the classic label, and makes you think twice of where your house is sat upon.