The Strangers

So often in the past have I gone into a horror movie with much-too-high expectations and come out disappointed. I have become jaded when it comes to this genre (one of my favorites). Recent offerings have been so very lackluster, or even worse, so splattered in gore that there is really nothing else to think about. When I saw the trailer for The Strangers (one of the best trailers in recent times), I got very excited again, but then immediately reminded myself of the trends of horror films these days. I approached the movie cautiously.

It certainly is an interesting concept. "Why are you doing this to us?" asks a quivery Liv Tyler in the trailer. "Because you were home," answers the masked stranger. Creepy, huh? Lurking intruders breaking into a reasonably secure home and stalking/torturing (psychologically) its inhabitants simply for funsies. It really is unsettling. And to tell the truth, the movie is pretty darn effective.

From the beginning, we are informed that the film is based on true events. Such a disclaimer is usually a really, really bad sign for a horror movie. But in The Strangers, it works. Because, as it turns out, it kinda is based on true events, most notably the Manson family murders from the sixties. No sooner do Kristen (Tyler) and James (Scott Speedman) arrive at his summer home than there are (gasp!) loud bangs on the front door. Commence screaming and jumping.

To tell the truth, although the setup is minimal, I thought it was very serviceable. We know that James has just proposed to Kristen and she has turned him down, so there is a palpable tension between them when the horror begins. She is "not ready" for marriage; he is embarrassed at being turned down. The summer home in which most of the action takes place has been lovingly prepared for romantic celebration, as James had planned a happy getaway with his new fiance. Unfortunately, things did not go as planned, and everything is about to get worse.

Despite the rift between the two characters, there comes time for action (as in any horror film). As the noise from outside the house becomes more and more threatening, the tension mounts until finally, in the most chilling moment in the film (see picture), we realize that the strangers are no longer content to remain outside. That's when the real "fun" begins.

What bothers me is that events like those in The Strangers really do happen in the world. So it's difficult (disturbing?) to enjoy a horror film when its horrors are so very legitimate. That's not to say that the film is not exceptional. It is quite well-done, with the isolated house providing a truly unsafe setting, and a notable soundtrack sending chills up the spine. And Liv Tyler is a surprisingly good horror actress. She screams like the best of 'em. Speedman is a little wooden, but he gets the job done. The masked strangers are pretty creepy, as well, particularly when we first meet them. A face covered with a colorless potato sack is always more terrifying than a plain old human face. Always.

I will say that the ending is (for the most part) refreshingly logical. However, the final shot, as many people will note, is confusing and even frustrating. Considering the information we are given at the beginning of the film, I had a hard time coming to terms with it. But in the end, it's not too big of a stretch...I guess. It feels forced, though, like some Hollywoodized test audience was outraged with the original ending and writer/director Bryan Bertino was forced to reshoot it. Whatever. It's the ending we're given. But it's too bad that it weakens an otherwise strong movie.

VERDICT:
I love horror movies, but I am usually pretty tough on them. It's hard to make a scary movie that will both please an audience and satisfy movie snobs, but I feel like The Strangers comes close to doing both. It might not quite succeed, but it's probably the best-made horror movie that you've seen in a couple of years, or that you'll get for a while. It's not gory, so if that's what you want, rent Saw. This is a high-concept movie that is one big psychological torture scene. It is pretty effective in making you want to invest in a better security system, though.

Should you spend your money? If you're a hardcore horror movie buff who's desperate for a good entry in the genre, YES. If you're in the mood for gore and a high body count, WAIT FOR VIDEO. 7.5/10.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

So I'm sitting in the darkened theater. I have just watched several movie trailers for upcoming action/adventure films. (Some of them look pretty awesome...but I digress.)

The old familiar Lucasfilm logo comes on the screen, followed by the old school Paramount logo (the one from the 80's, if I know my nostalgia). First image - a prairie dog. I'm thinking, "Okay, interesting choice." Then, there is a car full of teenagers racing with some military officials out in the desert, to the tune of "Hound Dog." The credits roll. I note the superiority of all filmmakers involved. Spielberg aside, there is Janusz Kaminski and his mind-blowing cinematography, Michael Kahn and his adrenaline-infused editing, and of course, Kathleen Kennedy and George Lucas himself in the producers' chairs. Lucas also co-wrote the script with David Koepp. All of these are frequent Spielberg collaborators, and their talents combined, without fail, produce superior results.

When the credits stop rolling, we are almost immediately re-introduced to Indiana Jones (Ford, looking old, but not too old). The old familiar John Williams score plays, and my heart begins to race. I am ready to boogie. Because the first five minutes are superb in their execution. Without missing a beat, every element comes together, and the result is terribly exciting.

And that's the word that best describes Indy 4. It is just so exciting! There are maybe five minutes of down time in the entire movie. It is a popcorn flick, no doubt, but it is so incredibly well-made. This is the way filmmaking should be done, folks. Take a page out of Spielberg's book. As cliche as it might be to say, he genuinely is one of the greatest of this or any time.

Now to a rundown of the plot. It's 1957. Indiana Jones is now a Colonel who served in WWII. He is kidnapped (we learn in the first few minutes) by Russian KGB (no more Nazis - it's Cold War time!), led by Irina Spalko (a terrific as always Cate Blanchett). Spalko plans to use Indy to find...well...a crystal skull. This is immediately followed by the first plot twist, the first huge action scene, an atomic bomb explosion, and Indy's escape.

So we learn that old Indiana Jones is a tenured professor of anthropology. Enter Mutt Williams (latest it-boy Shia LaBeouf, in one of the coolest introductions of the series) to enlist Indy's help to find his old pal Professor Oxley (John Hurt...British and bizarre). Chase scene, character development, travel to foreign land (shown via the old-school line on the world map), action scene, caves and cobwebs, plot development, plot twist #2, more Cate Blanchett, the introduction to the crystal skull, more Shia LaBeouf, more action, more action, more action. Damn, it's just so exciting!

VERDICT:
In the end, it's the kind of movie that you must see. Take my word for it. It's never boring, always interesting, and come on...who wouldn't want to see Harrison Ford try his hardest to be agile again? Spot-on acting, camera work, editing, music, everything. I welcome Indiana Jones back not just as a fan of the franchise, but as someone who loves to be entertained by someone who knows how to entertain well. Thank you Steven Spielberg!

Should you spend your money? For God's sake, YES! 9/10.

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

There were moments in Prince Caspian in which I couldn't tell if I was watching an installment of The Chronicles of Narnia or of The Lord of the Rings. The scope of the franchise has practically doubled in size since December 2005's The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. From what I can tell, that's probably a good thing.

The extra-long movie, all 147 minutes of it, is adapted and helmed by the steady hand of Andrew Adamson, who also kicked off the series with the first film. Adamson is clearly a fan of the C.S. Lewis books, and his treatment of the material brings to life all the finest elements of Narnia. Unfortunately, as any Lewis reader knows, Prince Caspian isn't quite as rich as The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. That being said, though, the film is quite faithful to the source material.

The Pevensies (aka, the Kings and Queens of Narnia) - Peter (William Moseley), Lucy (Georgie Henley), Edmund (Skandar Keynes), and Susan (Anna Popplewell) - all return for the second installment, and of course this time around, there is the addition of Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes). Caspian summons the family Pevensie when he realizes his tyrannical uncle, King Miraz (Sergio Castellitto - who, btw, looks almost eerily like King Leonidas from 300), is out to kill him for the throne. Miraz believes the Narnians are extinct, but as Caspian soon finds out, all the manimal creatures are quite alive and ready to battle! Which they do...several times.

The first hour of Prince Caspian is, to be honest, kind of a slog. It is much too slow for a film of this scope. But the problem is that there's no way around the slowness. It's been nearly three years since the first movie, so we have to get to know the characters again. And thus comes the film's biggest problem - we never know the Pevensies well enough to really care about them. Plus, we pretty much can guess the outcome of the conflict. So it seems that the first hour could have been accelerated, if only so that the second hour and a half didn't feel so rushed. The latter part of the movie picks up the pace (thank God), but is fraught with battle after battle after battle.

That's not to say that the battles are not awesome...they are quite the spectacle, actually. The entire film, for that matter, is extremely pretty. Which is exactly why it feels very Lord of the Rings-esque. I don't guess that's a bad thing, but Prince Caspian is trying too hard. It never reaches the epic proportions of Wardrobe or any of the LOTR movies. Its villain (Miraz) absolutely sucks in comparison to the White Witch. So in the end, I guess I felt a little cheated. The visual presentation is glorious, but the end result is a little muddled. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Whatever. The fantasy still overrules the weaknesses.

As far as the acting goes, well...I guess it doesn't matter. To be honest, I think the filmmakers could have cast cardboard cutouts in the roles and the fans would have been satisfied. The best of the bunch is the newcomer to the series - Barnes. Everyone else gets the job done, but not exceptionally, although Popplewell looks awesome with her bow and arrow, particularly during the climactic battle. But Moseley's interpretation of Peter is awful. As a result, Peter is hardly likable at all: He's arrogant, whiny, confrontational, and emotionless. Notably gone from the cast are James McAvoy's Mr. Tumnus and Mr. and Mrs. Beaver (sure it's been 1300 years in Narnia and they're probably dead, but, you know...). However, there is a surprise appearance by one of Wardrobe's main characters. I won't spoil who it is, but it's a welcome appearance. The other additional characters are great. And Aslan, as expected, makes an honorable appearance.

VERDICT:
The first hour is tough, but after that, it becomes...a pretty good movie. Not as incredible and magnificent as Wardrobe, but still worlds better than other capitalistic sequels (see: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest). It's a movie much more enjoyable on the big screen...looking UP at the beautiful cinematography and flawless CGI as opposed to DOWN at the television adds to the magic. In the end, this is a movie that everyone sees no matter what anyone says about it, particularly if you're my age and/or a fan of the C.S. Lewis book. So should you buy a ticket? YES. 7/10