Event Horizon (1997)
★ / ★★★★
A spaceship designed by a scientist named Dr. William Wier (Sam Neill) reappeared near Neptune after disappearing for seven years. The scientist boarded a rescue ship with its crew of specialists (Joely Richardson, Kathleen Quinlan, Richard T. Jones, Jack Noseworthy, Jason Isaacs, Sean Perwee) which was led by the domineering Captain Miller (Laurence Fishburne). When the eight finally boarded the mysterious Event Horizon, the original crew was nowhere to be found. However, their advanced instruments detected a life form supposedly located all over the ship. What I first noticed about the movie was its great visuals. Unfortunately, it had nothing else to offer. The movie succumbed to typicalities such as the rescuers being targeted one by one as if they were stuck in a bad slasher film. I think the picture was more interested in generating scares than taking advantage of its creepy setting and the science that is currently out of our reach. It was a crucial problem because I noticed that the majority of the time, the characters were haunted by hallunications. For smart and supposedly well-trained people, I found it hard to believe that they could not detach themselves from the idea that the loved ones they left on Earth were actually on the ship or that someone from their past had come back for revenge. What I expected for the movie to focus on was the possible gateway to another dimension. Space is limitless and thefore open to many kinds of interpretation. I thought it was a wasted opportunity that the writer, Philip Eisner, took the obvious path–a formula that consisted of nothing but blood and violence. Everything was spoon-fed for us and that was one of its biggest crimes. I knew exactly when something would pop out or when someone would die. It was not a fun experience because I felt like it didn’t even try to do something creative. Toward the end, it was plagued with cheesy one-liners and the filmmakers failed to wrap up the story in a respectable way. It seemed like they knew that they made a disappointing movie and just tossed it aside. Directed by Paul W.S. Anderson, “Event Horizon” is a science fiction film that might have been exposed to a black hole because all of the potentially wondorous elements had been sucked out of it. It didn’t have the bravado to challenge us, to ask questions about its characters and their mission and, most importantly, it didn’t make us think about how we would cope if we were given the same situation because it failed to pause from all the senseless action.
Waking the Dead (2000)
★★★ / ★★★★
In 1972, Fielding (Billy Crudup), an ambitious aspiring politician from a working class background, met Sarah (Jennifer Connelly), a girl who loved to spend her time working for the church and helping others in need. But in 1974, Sarah died in a car bombing while helping some Chilean activists enter the United States. Fast forward ten years when Fielding was running for office, Fielding became plagued with visions of Sarah. He began to question his sanity because he thought he saw her walking in the streets and even calling his house phone. I was torn whether or not to recommend this film. There was no doubt that I highly enjoyed it because the chemistry between Crudup and Connelly was one of the strongest I’ve experienced in a long time. When they had conversations, even though they didn’t always agree with each other’s approach to politics (politician versus activist, mainstream versus counterculture), it was apparent that they loved each other because they exuded a certain warmth and sometimes fiery passion in their eyes. When they made love, it was sexy and when they were away from one another, I looked forward to seeing them eventually taking up the same space. They were both smart, caring, had something to prove and I found bits of myself in both of them. Unfortunately, I had a problem with the way the story was put together. It wasn’t told in a linear order so it was up to us to put together the pieces, which I found to be a positive quality because it managed to challenged me. One of my favorite aspects of the picture was its uncertainty whether Sarah was alive all along or whether she was really dead and Fielding was experiencing some sort of guilt. In the end, there was no clear answer. Personally, I thought it was the latter because it was more grounded in reality but at the same time there’s enough mysticism to it to provide another dimension to the material. However, if it was the latter, I didn’t understand why Fielding felt so much guilt involving the death of his lover. Was it because he moved onto another girl (who he didn’t even love but it was more for a political strategy) years after Sarah’s death? If so, I didn’t think he should have felt guilty at all because everyone deserves to move on from a painful period of his or her life. I think the film could have done a better job showing and explaining to us why Fielding was so guilt-ridden. Since that crucial part was missing, it was very problematic because it was what drove the scenes in the 1980s forward. Based on a novel by Scott Spencer, “Waking the Dead,” directed by Keith Gordon, benefited from the strong and believable acting between the two leads. If it had clearer connection between past and present, I think it would have been unstoppable.
Haunting of Molly Hartley, The (2008)
★ / ★★★★
For the record, I only saw this movie because of Chace Crawford. I’m a fan of “Gossip Girl” and I was curious to see what Crawford has to offer. Unfortunately, he pretty much plays the same character as he does on the show so watching this flick wasn’t worth it at all. I’ve read all kinds of negative reviews about “The Haunting of Molly Hartley” so to say that my expectations were really low is putting it mildly. Regardless, I was still very disappointed with this faux-thriller/horror. I don’t even think eight-year-olds at a slumber party would find this scary; there’s no blood, no story and not enough “jumpy” scenes (perhaps there’s a total of five throughout the entire picture). I think the director (Mickey Liddell) and the writers (John Travis and Rebecca Sonnenshine) are to blame. They have no sense of suspense whatsoever. They try to scare the audience with whispers and figment of one’s imagination–even writing it sounds lame. In my opinion, Travis and Sonnenshine should’ve first established a believable story and a lead character (Haley Bennett) that we can root for until the very end. They could’ve saved the thrills for the second half of the picture and it still would’ve worked (if they were effective). Instead, we get this trashy hybrid of “90210” and “The O.C.” mixed with hallucinations and satanic rituals. The ending was completely confusing and unbelievable. I honestly have no idea how this movie got a green light for production. I rarely say this but please do not ever watch this movie. Even if you’re slightly curious, turn the other way and pick another film. I saw this when I was in a good mood and got out of it feeling angry and frustrated. It’s definitely one of the best (if not the worst) movies of 2008.
Haunting in Connecticut, The (2009)
★★ / ★★★★
I was surprised by how much this film was grounded in reality even though the trailers sold it off as a typical “based on a true story” demonic possession. Virginia Madsen and Martin Donovan star as the parents who choose to move in a house with a creepy history because their son’s (Kyle Gallner) cancer treatment facility is nearby. It’s not long until spirits start to get themselves known to Gallner’s character in truly horrifying manners. I really admired the first thirty minutes of this horror flick because things that most people would consider as supernatural are things that can happen to cancer patients going through various therapies (i.e. hallucinations). I wish Peter Cornwell, the director, decided to keep straddling the line between science and the supernatural because it’s very reminiscent of “The Exorcist.” To me, the closer a horror film is to reality, its resonance after I leave the theater is amplified many more times as opposed to a horror movie that’s so unbelievable to the point where it loses its power. Unfortunately, this movie is the latter. Another frustration that I had with it was the film’s use of soundtrack to cue that something terrifying is happening on screen. I was really taken out of the moment whenever the soundtrack would be heard; most of the time, I don’t like outside cues to tell me how I should be feeling especially when the obvious is being shown on the screen. Its scares would’ve been more effective if there was less jarring creepy sounds–let the creaks of each footstep or a body hitting furnitures do all the work. After all, this is a horror film about a house with a questionable past (in the least) so the-less-the-better technique could’ve done wonders. As for its acting, I thought everyone did pretty good but I felt like Gallner was holding back. I’ve seen him in several television shows and movies so I know that he could’ve done more. Still, “The Haunting in Connecticut” had three or four solid scares so I’m giving it a mediocre rating. However, it would’ve been so much better if the booming soundtrack during scares was kept at a minimum or was not integrated at all.
Bad Lieutenant (1992)
★★ / ★★★★
Even though I really wanted to like this film more than I did, I can understand why it gained its cult following. The film features dark alleys and hallways as if to resemble the dark side of humanity. That metaphor is consistent throughout so it’s difficult not to admire Abel Ferrara’s direction. Each scene is so visceral and honest to the point where it was painful to watch; two scenes I can recall right away is the scene that involves a rape and when the lead actor (Harvey Keitel) actually sees Christ. Keitel pushes his acting ability to its limit and it was great to see. His character is extremely difficult to like because he’s on drugs pretty much every hour of every day, he doesn’t really care for his family, he terrorizes unknowing teenage girls and his obsession with gambling ultimately takes a toll on his soul. That latter component, in my opinion, is the one topic that’s fully explored. On the outside, it seems like he gambles for the money but if one were to look closely, it’s more about his desperation to stay in touch with reality. Without living in some kind of risk, it seems as though the lead character doesn’t feel like he exists–at least exist in a meaningful way. As much as I love symbolism and reading between the lines, at the same time, that’s the most frustrating part of this film. It doesn’t really let the audiences know why things are unfolding as they are. It’s open to interpretation so it automatically weeds out those who are unwilling to look past the grimy, nihilistic setting. To me, it needs more focus in terms of exploring its core and why this tortured character ended up the way he is. The pictures gives us a lot of scenes that involve Keitel’s character doing a lot of very bad things but without some sort of background, he becomes the enemy instead of someone we can watch all the way through–not necessarily root for. I admired this film’s many conflicting ideas but I cannot quite recommend it because I feel like it needed more substance instead of just featuring self-destruction for about ninety minutes.