★ / ★★★★
Clark Stevens (Joshua Leonard) recently got accepted as an intern in the Cunningham Mental Hospital. While some gave him a warm welcome like Sarah (Jordan Ladd), a fellow intern, others like the head nurse of the facility (Dendrie Taylor) gave him the stink eye. While Clark awaited to meet Dr. Franks (Lance Henriksen), the director of the hospital, he noticed something strange. It looked like Dr. Franks was researching about paranormal phenomena in psychiatric facilities. Assigned to live in the upper floors, Clark eventually started to see ghosts of a little boy, a first sign that maybe something was very wrong about the place. Written by William Butler and Aaron Strongoni, directed by the former, “Madhouse” was effective in terms of building a creepy atmosphere but it didn’t quite know how to deliver scares that audiences would remember. The editing was partly to blame. Whenever the film wanted to show something scary, manic editing overshadowed the tension. Images of snakes, blood, and shadows were shown but none of them were ever explained. Without explaining to us the significance of the symbols, there was no reason for us to be scared of them. Instead of focusing on the gruesome kills, the editing became distracting and annoying. The director should have allowed us to absorb the horror of what was happening to the ill-fated characters. Speaking of characters, none of them were fully developed. The staff performed unethical practices, which I’m sure held some truth in actual mental hospitals, but I’m afraid the picture didn’t highlight enough positive elements of such places. The staff were simply cardboard cutouts for the sake of being a horror movie. In doing so, the material failed to challenge us by showing us a glimmer of reality. Sometimes we get scared the most of we knew that what we were seeing could potentially happen in actuality. If the writers wanted us to feel like the mental facility was a real place, they should have added depth by highlighting the pros and cons of rehabilitation centers. If the writing and direction, with enough skill and luck, were synergistic, the place itself could have been a character. There’s a difference between simplicity and somnolence. Unfortunately, “Madhouse” teetered toward the latter. With such an unbelievable ending, I got the impression that Butler and Strongoni had no idea how to end their story so they took the easy (and lazy) way out by writing a “shocking” ending. I thought it cheated and that was unforgivable. I enjoyed Leonard’s performance because he had a certain vulnerability about him. I wished the material he had to work with was more worthy.
Bottle Shock (2008)
★★ / ★★★★
I decided to watch this movie because I was interested to learn more about one of the landmarks of the wine industry (even though I don’t know much about wine). That is, the creation of the perfect Chateau Montelena chardonnay. Alan Rickman stars as Steven Spurrier, the owner of Academie du Vin, who traveled to the United States in order to collect wine for the Judgment of Paris wine competition. One of the places he visited was Chateau Montelena which was owned by Jim Barrett (Bill Pullman), a man who was buried in loans and frustration with the fact that his son (Chris Pine) failed to show interest or enthusiasm when it came to the family business. The weaker and less interesting part of the film was the romance triangle among a Hispanic worker (Freddy Rodriguez) in Chateau Montelena, a new intern (Rachael Taylor), and Jim’s aimless son. Another negative was that even though the story was supposed to be set in 1976, it didn’t feel like it was because of both the actors and the script. That sense of authenticity was important to me because I really wanted to be sucked into the time period. I also felt as though the picture played everything a bit too safe. With each scene everything just felt nice and breezy instead of revolutionary, which is a problem because the core of the movie was how the events in the vineyard impacted the wine industry. Randall Miller, the director, should have taken more risks instead of resting on the romance between the three younger characters. In fact, I think the movie would’ve been better off if about thirty minutes were cut off because it would have been more focused and the pace wouldn’t have felt as slow. Still, I don’t consider “Bottle Shock” a bad movie because there were moments of true wonder for the audiences, especially when the wine suddenly changed from clear to brown. I had no idea whether that was a positive or a negative thing prior so I certainly learned something from the film. And the exciting competition scene was quite amusing because the French judges tried so hard to discern which wines were from France and which ones were from the United States. The looks on their faces after the competition was priceless.